Canada's "Bible belts"

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

"Laïcité" and "secularism" are synonyms. One is a direct translation of the other.

Not all would agree. Only one implies the repression of religious expression by the State.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

"Laïcité" and "secularism" are synonyms. One is a direct translation of the other.

Yep. I don't see a difference (as I just said, maybe kw will elaborate on what he means). In both cases, a government with a policy of secularism would IMO never even entertain the thought of letting niqab-wearing employees represent the face of the State. That would be pure nonsense.

It's not really any different IMO than having a hardcore nudist not being able to be a State employee whose job involves dealing with the public unless he accepts to give up something about himself. The level of "discrimination" is basically the same, and very acceptable.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yep. I don't see a difference (as I just said, maybe kw will elaborate on what he means). In both cases, a government with a policy of secularism would IMO never even entertain the thought of letting niqab-wearing employees represent the face of the State. That would be pure nonsense.

It's not really any different IMO than having a hardcore nudist not being able to be a State employee whose job involves dealing with the public unless he accepts to give up something about himself. The level of "discrimination" is basically the same, and very acceptable.

Although the possibility of it actually happening is remote, why do you think so? I try to imagine a situation where it would make a difference to me in my dealings with the government and I come up empty. I take as a given that the substance of the interaction would be identical with or without the face veil.

[mousquet]

@Lio

Lol, I actually have great respect for real nice nudists/naturists showing up naked, just like that. It's not even anything sexual or sensual to them, it's only some way they like to be.

Since this is called the "Bible belt", always keep in mind Adam and Eve are naked up there in heaven. They're not scared, with nothing to hide. They live in total confidence and pure faith, all naked, and they're completely free up there in heaven.

That's why nudists are positively amazing to me. They just don't give a shit. And I assume God doesn't either.

Mais bon, let's still be pragmatic. Given current societies all over the world, it would be disturbing that people got naked too casually. No one's civilized enough for this better lifestyle yet.

[Acajack]

Perhaps the nuance comes from the application of the term "laïcité" in France, which involved a significant scaling back of the influence and presence of the church in public life.

This is probably because the Church was so dominant at one time being the religion of the crushing majority. The same case can be made for Quebec as well. Among the francophone population of Quebec, in 1965 basically *everyone* was Catholic. It was an easy, natural step to have Catholicism permeate all public institutions.

In Anglo-Canada, secularism and some kind of separation of church and state/public institutions happened earlier and more naturally because of the greater mixture of religions. (Although almost all of them Christian, except for Judaism really.)

There wasn't one single all powerful and dominant religious entity that could pair up with government and run everything in Anglo-Canada like there was in Quebec (and long ago, in France).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Although the possibility of it actually happening is remote, why do you think so? I try to imagine a situation where it would make a difference to me in my dealings with the government and I come up empty. I take as a given that the substance of the interaction would be identical with or without the face veil.

I don't see the fact that few people are doing it at the moment to be a good reason to "embrace" it.

It's kind of the same dubious argument as Trinity Western: even if they make gays uncomfortable, it's no big deal because there are plenty of other places where gays can go to university.

It's like having a bar that deliberately makes black people uncomfortable. No big deal - they can go have a drink somewhere else. There are lots of other places.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'll be completely honest, I'm not comfortable with the niqab. I think that a hijab is a reasonable alternative expression of culture and identity; the niqab is a bit far beyond of the bounds of western culture for my comfort. That said, I'm also sensitive to the fact that western culture has very happily tried to regulate what women wear for a long time and see this as being an extension of that. The question is what reasonable accommodation looks like.

Well, I am not in favour of banning it in public spaces (eg on the street) like many countries do. Switzerland was the latest to ban it a month or so ago, and many other countries ban it on the streets, including many Muslim majority countries.

In a number of Muslim countries there are various types of bans on the burqa/niqab and even head scarves, including public employees or students in public educational institutions.

It's not really Quebec that is the global outlier in asking itself these questions at this moment in history.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Although the possibility of it actually happening is remote, why do you think so?

Why? Because humans have traditionally shown their faces to other humans when engaging in non-shady dealings. That's been true throughout the entire history of humanity, and I don't see that changing. There are a lot of things to read in someone else's face.

The exact same argument also applies to nudists: humans have traditionally made sure they weren't showing their genitals to other humans when engaging in non-intimate dealings, so it's normal to expect the State -- it is society, after all -- to continue to abide by this convention.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't see the fact that few people are doing it at the moment to be a good reason to "embrace" it.

It's kind of the same dubious argument as Trinity Western: even if they make gays uncomfortable, it's no big deal because there are plenty of other places where gays can go to university.

It's like having a bar that deliberately makes black people uncomfortable. No big deal - they can go have a drink somewhere else. There are lots of other places.

Not "embracing" anything here, but I don't understand the analogies at all. What is the "uncomfortable" about? Perhaps this is why the issue remains a mystery to me. Going to the passport counter, for example, to find the clerk veiled would strike me as unusual but would in no way cause me to feel uncomfortable as long as the level of service was professional. If I were to feel uncomfortable, it would definitely cause me to do bit of soul-searching to try to deal with my inappropriate reaction to the "other".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

What is the "uncomfortable" about? Perhaps this is why the issue remains a mystery to me. Going to the passport counter, for example, to find the clerk veiled would strike me as unusual but would in no way cause me to feel uncomfortable as long as the level of service was professional.

Sincerely, going to the passport counter to find the clerk naked would strike me as unusual but would in no way cause me to be unable to complete the intended transaction in a fully satisfactory way. And the sun would continue to rise in the mornings.

[lio45]

To me it doesn't seem too much to ask of an employee representing the State (i.e. us all) to, while on duty, respect a few basic standards such as

1) wear clothes, even if the big flying spaghetti monster in the sky said you shouldn't;
2) show your face, even if the big flying spaghetti monster in the sky said you shouldn't;
etc.

If you can't/won't do these things, then you should just fall into the "unemployable" category until you change your mind. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Not "embracing" anything here, but I don't understand the analogies at all. What is the "uncomfortable" about? Perhaps this is why the issue remains a mystery to me. Going to the passport counter, for example, to find the clerk veiled would strike me as unusual but would in no way cause me to feel uncomfortable as long as the level of service was professional. If I were to feel uncomfortable, it would definitely cause me to do bit of soul-searching to try to deal with my inappropriate reaction to the "other".

It's not about people being uncomfortable being served by a woman with a face veil (though admittedly, some might be), it's about a greater openness on the part of the state to grant exemptions for religious reasons.

Exhibit A:

- The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. By extension, neither do institutions. Especially not those operating with some kind of state oversight or regulation.

Enter TWU. For religious reasons they're allowed to stick their noses in the bedrooms (only figuratively speaking, we hope) in the bedrooms of their students who are consenting adults.

Exhibit B:

- It is not the generally accepted practice for public facing (pardon the pun) public employees to wear masks and other stuff that is deemed contrary to a commonly accepted dress code.

Enter the burqa and niqab. While it may not have occurred yet (and here I don't know for sure), the trendline points directly at future exceptions, for religious reasons, to the usual dress code and practice I described above. We've already had voting with face coverings and citizenship ceremonies with face coverings, so why wouldn't cops and teachers with face veils be "coming soon to a Canadian community near you"? It's the logical next step. Things aren't going in the other direction. They're going in that direction.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

... contrary to a commonly accepted dress code.

As I pointed out already in the past, I would be much more okay with abolishing dress codes altogether. It's the "playing the religion card" loophole that's inacceptable.

If it were normal practice to have government service points where some of the clerks behind the desks are fully naked while others are in the "beekeeper suit" burka and everywhere in between these two extremes, then there wouldn't be any problem.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by lio45

The exact same argument also applies to nudists: humans have traditionally made sure they weren't showing their genitals to other humans when engaging in non-intimate dealings.

Wait a minute, this is wrong, isn't it? Remember, sure some so-called 'primitive' communitities of Africa or of the Americas wouldn't mind living naked, but they precisely would lack the ability to own, to read and understand something thoughtful like the Bible.

Indeed, these primitive communities showed outrageous human cruelty, sometimes even sadism and cannibalism, the worst on Earth.

Nevertheless, they were (or still are for some of them) a living evidence that both being naked in warmer regions and developing a global, civilized and multilingual community is something possible.

Heck, it only takes a bit of imagination and creativity, which is proper to mankind. That's the only thing to make a difference between us and animals!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

As I pointed out already in the past, I would be much more okay with abolishing dress codes altogether. It's the "playing the religion card" loophole that's inacceptable.

If it were normal practice to have government service points where some of the clerks behind the desks are fully naked while others are in the "beekeeper suit" burka and everywhere in between these two extremes, then there wouldn't be any problem.

Agreed, but that's not the way it works.

Pretty sure if you're a passport office clerk working with the public that you cannot wear this kind of t-shirt:

[Acajack]

BTW the reference to bacon was completely accidental. Kinda funny though when you consider the discussion!

[esquire]

All this chatter about nudism is fascinating, but it's a bit fanciful given that there is no significant religion I'm aware of that dictates nudism (apart from smart-alecky hypothetical religions in the vein of the flying spaghetti monster). In practical terms, even if there were such a religion, its adherents would die off quickly in Canada, or leave for warmer climes. And I think it's far from a stretch to say that someone being extremely underdressed in public (i.e., nude) is a sight that all people will generally frown on regardless of personal belief system, as opposed to being overdressed which we may not like, but we're not going to necessarily avert our eyes from.

[Acajack]

As an aside, I remember 20 or more years ago when the issue of turbans in the RCMP came up, and there were lots of similar comparisons between Sikh turbans, the spaghetti strainer, nudity, etc.

The counter-argument was that Sikhism was an established religion with many centuries of history, etc. Contrary to spaghetti-strainer-ism.

Anyway, we all know how it turned out.

Of course, the turban did not have the issue of women's rights in the background, or any of the other global issues we have today. (Even though there was Sikh terrorism back in the day. But I don't recall it getting mixed into the debate very much.)

[RWin]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Again, you can see here that anti-LGBT people are concentrated in rural Alrberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Central NB seems to be a bit bible-belty.

http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/...ts-with-r.html

I wonder what they think of this:

http://yqcbelong.com/

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by esquire

All this chatter about nudism is fascinating, but it's a bit fanciful given that there is no significant religion I'm aware of that dictates nudism (apart from smart-alecky hypothetical religions in the vein of the flying spaghetti monster). In practical terms, even if there were such a religion, its adherents would die off quickly in Canada, or leave for warmer climes. And I think it's far from a stretch to say that someone being extremely underdressed in public (i.e., nude) is a sight that all people will generally frown on regardless of personal belief system, as opposed to being overdressed which we may not like, but we're not going to necessarily avert our eyes from.

Pardon me, but this is typically a kind of distrust that fucks up this entire world.

You live a country that's always freezing from November to May, so yes, you'd better wear your doudoune. Get dressed, buddy!

But when you go to French Polynesia for your vacations, when a better system finally allows you to do so (I know you want it), why not going a little bit more relaxed?

As far as I go, I was raised a Catholic. The only worthy religion to me is Christianity. This is just about the only thing along with math I rely on in the world.

Any fairly educated Christian way of thinking is very helpful. Whether it would be Catholic like myself (cause we bring universalism to this shit), Protestant (cause they bring the necessary rebellion) or Orthodox (that brings back some deeper original Christian tradition).

Really, nothing in there should be so exotic or unusual to you, if you were raised a Christian too.