Ah, a political thread! I'm tired of posting jokes

[JohnCollins]

Only problem with this one is it is often NOT immigrants causing the ruckus, it's Hollywood liberals, university professors and the media. *sigh* Those poor Spanish parents in California are still having to fight every day to keep these boobs from forcing their children into spanish-only classrooms! God bless all immigrants. God save us from liberal do-gooders.

-------------

The Right to Leave......

After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion
and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's
license with her face covered , I believe this is even more
appropriate. Read on, please!

This is an editorial written by an American citizen,
published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he?

IMMIGRANTS, not Americans and Canadians, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans and Canadians.

However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to North America.

Our population is almost entirely comprised of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of America or Canada being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans and Canadians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and

women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

If Stars, Stripes and a Maple Leaf offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam or Beavers, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. These are OUR COUNTRIES, our land, and our lifestyle.

Our First Amendment and in Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, gives every citizen the right to express his or her opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flags, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American and Canadian freedom:

THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

[xraygirl]

[JohnCollins]

Hil, xray! Yep. Hang around, the show should start any minute now, LOL.

[Mystic Eric]

I agree with most if not all of that post. Although I do have some other views, I won't discuss them right now.

But "political correctness" is seriously getting out of hand. In Canada, some East Indian RCMP (the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) protested against having to take off their turbans to wear the hat that is apart of the regular uniform. So now, East Indians that wear turbans don't have to wear the regular RCMP hat. I mean, come on. If you don't wanna follow the Police uniform, then don't be a cop.

Some things are just going too far imo.

[JohnCollins]

Lordy, lordy. I wish I hadn't read that, Eric. Got my BP up first thing in the morning. A RCMP with a turban.

*urk, gurgle, rghgh - grabs chest*

[BadKarma]

Originally posted by JohnCollins
or you don't like ... . Beavers, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

? How can you not like beavers?

[RisingPhoenix]

I agree with most of the article and the basic premise behind it

but this..

"adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools."

I can't really agree with that. Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists (believed in God but not the God of Christianity).

[Rock]

liberal politicians are nightmares for everybody, they should be removed.

[Tryska]

our founding fathers were the first liberal politicians we had. rising phoenix is right - the people who wrote the constituion were on a trip most of america has no clue about, yet it's the right wing christian conservatives who have taken it and warped it.

[DIESEL v2.0]

Originally posted by Mystic Eric
I agree with most if not all of that post. Although I do have some other views, I won't discuss them right now.

But "political correctness" is seriously getting out of hand. In Canada, some East Indian RCMP (the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) protested against having to take off their turbans to wear the hat that is apart of the regular uniform. So now, East Indians that wear turbans don't have to wear the regular RCMP hat. I mean, come on. If you don't wanna follow the Police uniform, then don't be a cop.

Some things are just going too far imo.

That is an incredibly ignorant comment. To certain Hindus, the turban isn't just some hat you wear like we would a baseball hat, or even a police hat. The turban is worn for religious purposes, and the wearing of a turban instead of the hat does not impede on that person's ability to do his job as a RCMP. I see no problem in letting them keep the turban.

The difference with the Muslim woman example is the whole point of an ID. Although she uses the same religious argument, the public policy reasons behind the situation are totally different. Here the Driver's License is meant for identification purposes, and therefore I think they were wrong in letting her take the pic with the facemask on. It sets a bad precedent.

[DIESEL v2.0]

Originally posted by Rock
liberal politicians are nightmares for everybody, they should be removed.

No. even though I don't consider myself a liberal, liberals should be given a voice..it's what keeps democracies from descending into fascism.

[Mystic Eric]

Originally posted by DIESEL v2.0


That is an incredibly ignorant comment. To certain Hindus, the turban isn't just some hat you wear like we would a baseball hat, or even a police hat. The turban is worn for religious purposes, and the wearing of a turban instead of the hat does not impede on that person's ability to do his job as a RCMP. I see no problem in letting them keep the turban.

The difference with the Muslim woman example is the whole point of an ID. Although she uses the same religious argument, the public policy reasons behind the situation are totally different. Here the Driver's License is meant for identification purposes, and therefore I think they were wrong in letting her take the pic with the facemask on. It sets a bad precedent.

It's not ignorant. Using religion as an excuse for something is ignorant. Just because something is part of your "religion" doesn't mean people have to change everything around to suite you.

[DIESEL v2.0]

Originally posted by Mystic Eric



It's not ignorant. Using religion as an excuse for something is ignorant. Just because something is part of your "religion" doesn't mean people have to change everything around to suite you.

It's a friggin' hat. You can think what you want, but I'm willing to bet money if you went to court challenging the policy of letting the Sikhs wear their turbans, that's exactly what the judge is going to tell you.

Using religion as an excuse for something is not ignorant, if it's a legitimate gripe, that in the long run has no effect on that person's ability to do his job. The turban DOES NOT interfere with the mountie's ability to do his job. The facemask interferes with the policeman's ability to ID the driver...that's the distinction.

[GonePostal]

Its not like the RCMP hat is some sacred institution or something, while the turban is. Both sides take it too far. If people were just to have some common sense and honesty there would be no need to debate such topics, it would just be a non-issue. Immigrants can speak whatever language they please. It is their own right to do so. If you don't like it tough don't talk or associate with them. Not speaking English in the Western world has its own punishments.

"This idea of America or Canada being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity"

Someone please alert the ignorance police.

[Mystic Eric]

I don't get the people that think "religion" or in your words, GonePostal, a sacred institution should have special benefits. I guess I should start a "religion" up where it is "sacred" that I do X and everyone should give me special priviledges because it's my "sacred religion".

[Saint Patrick]

Diesel 2.0 -

It seems to me like you're contradicting yourself - you're saying let the hindu wear the turban because it's his religious freedom, but take the veil off the muslim? It can't work both ways.

Nobody forced the hindu to become a mountie. Perhaps he should've considered the required uniform (including the hat) BEFORE he chose that line of work.

That's almost as bad as women with small boobies trying to get a job at hooters

[RisingPhoenix]

Thats not nearly as bad as women with small boobies tryin' to get jobs at Hooters tuttut

[DIESEL v2.0]

Originally posted by stpatrick44
Diesel 2.0 -

It seems to me like you're contradicting yourself - you're saying let the hindu wear the turban because it's his religious freedom, but take the veil off the muslim? It can't work both ways.

Nobody forced the hindu to become a mountie. Perhaps he should've considered the required uniform (including the hat) BEFORE he chose that line of work.

That's almost as bad as women with small boobies trying to get a job at hooters

I'm not contradicting my self, you're not getting the fine points of what I am saying.

(I'll use American courts as an example, since I'm not familiar with the Canadian legal system)

When a question such as this comes before a judge he must balance the public policy objectives and repercussions of the proposed dispute.

In the case of the mountie, his wearing a turban does not substantially detract from the job functions of a mountie, and given the religious justification and tradition behind Sikhs wearing their turbans, most courts would uphold the right of the Sikh to not wear the hat in lieu of the turban. If the court used the rationale of "well, then don't become a mountie, then that amounts to a form of religious discrimination, something that in the US is unconstitutional and therefore invalid under the law.

In the case of the facemask, the policy behind it is for identification purposes, and thus for the greater good, i.e. the public policy behind the ID, presumably security and easy ID supercedes the right of religious expression. There a court would uphold a policy that forces everyone to show their face regardless of religious belief.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you have to take each situation differently, and the courts do a "balancing test" between rights and the public policy prerogatives behind the law/rule.

I.e. it would be impossible to contradict myself here because in essence they are two rather different situations.

crystal now?

D

[Saint Patrick]

My point was if he didn't want to wear the mountie hat, he shouldn't have joined the mounties in the first place.

Ever seen an American Cop wearing a turban? Me Neither.

What if the Hindu became a Major League Baseball Player? MLB Requires ALL of their players to wear their team cap. Should they make an exception for this guy? Should they break a 150 year old league rule for this one person who wants to be a member of the league but doesn't feel that their rules should apply to him?

Don't Join an organization if you don't agree with their rules in the first place.

Crystal?

P

[DIESEL v2.0]

Originally posted by stpatrick44
My point was if he didn't want to wear the mountie hat, he shouldn't have joined the mounties in the first place.

Ever seen an American Cop wearing a turban? Me Neither.

What if the Hindu became a Major League Baseball Player? MLB Requires ALL of their players to wear their team cap. Should they make an exception for this guy? Should they break a 150 year old league rule for this one person who wants to be a member of the league but doesn't feel that their rules should apply to him?

Don't Join an organization if you don't agree with their rules in the first place.

Crystal?

P

MLB is a private organization and can therefore make any rule they want, even ones that on their face are discriminatory (such as Augusta Natonal for golf) , the mounties are a government organization and subject to a much stricter judicial scrutiny , therefore the Hindus challenge would probably fail against MLB but prevail against the mounties.

Don't join a PRIVATE organization if you don't agree with their rules in the first place. You can't say that about PUBLIC organizations.

Crystal? Nice try, tho.

[Saint Patrick]

so it's like that, eh?

ok, perhaps the Hindu should join the military, and fight the system to wear his turban into battle, instead of a helmet.
Sure, he'll probably get capped in the dome, but at least he still has his religious freedom....

[Mystic Eric]

lol just one thing though, RCMP don't usually wear those red outfits with the big brown hats lol.

[Saint Patrick]

they don't? that's how I pictured all canadians

[Mystic Eric]

Originally posted by stpatrick44
they don't? that's how I pictured all canadians

[DIESEL v2.0]

Originally posted by stpatrick44
so it's like that, eh?

ok, perhaps the Hindu should join the military, and fight the system to wear his turban into battle, instead of a helmet.
Sure, he'll probably get capped in the dome, but at least he still has his religious freedom....

I'm beginning to think you're a bit dense, dude. What part of "case by case" analysis don't you get?

In this example, you could make a good argument for making them wear helmets, as like you pointed out, not wearing one could get their heads blown off!

Do you get where I'm going with this?? The hat is purely ornamental, the helmet, arguably, is not. The Hindu could then make a case over not wearing the dress uniform hat, however,