(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Bush's approval rating: 34%
Cheney's: 18%.

Also,
Two-pound crimefighter: Training a chihuahua to be a drug-sniffing dog.

Also,
Real Live Preacher: A Texas baptist minister's blog, on the inherent hypocrisy in condemning homosexuality and then specific scriptural debunking of using the Bible to argue against homosexuals.

Comments

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Ok, I have a question about freedom of religion, specificaly in Canada.

If a group of christians start saying "the bible tells me I must eat poop", and then they go eat poop, at work (say on their lunch break), and get fired for it, are they being discriminated against based on their religion?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

(...if it's on their lunch break, is it at work?)

Just to clarify: if someone sits down in the cafeteria at work and dumps their shit (literally) on the table (because it would have to be noticed, right? Unless there're cameras in the bathroom stalls or no way to step out of the building during lunch, it can be done discretely), and gets fired for it, you want to know if it's because they *believe* they should eat shit in public or because they *did* eat shit in public?

I would say it's not religious discrimination, unless you could prove that someone who dumped their shit on the table for secular reasons wouldn't get fired.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

I am liking that gentleman. The last one mentioned, not the first two.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It depends. Do you mean "eating poop" in the euphemistic sense, of legislating that Christian Creationism be taught to other people's children, or do you mean literally eating poop?

Assuming real poop, the questions are:

Is eating poop against health regulations? If yes, then no.

Is eating poop disturbing other workers *and* is it too large a burden on the employer to provide you with a separate poop-eating area? If yes, then no - think "smoking" or "praying to mecca" for your comparisons.

Are you coming back from your lunchbreak reeking of poop and proudly breathing on your customers? If yes, then no.

Are you encouraging those around you to convert and join you in eating poop? If yes, then no.

If eating poop is not a health risk, does not impinge on other people in the workplace, does not present your employers with an undue burden, does not affect your job performance, does not result in proselytization, and constitutes a legitimate religious obligation, then it's discriminatory to fire you for doing it. For what it's worth, eliminate that last condition and this is the test that applies to just about *every* behaviour.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Ok, so what does freedom of religion provide for then?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

No-one getting to fire you because even though you're pleasant, polite, good and your job, and have done nothing wrong, they don't feel like having a filthy Christ-killer/fish-eater/towelhead/hippie freak on payroll, so sucks to be you.

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

I suspect it provides for the same thing it does here in the US: the governement doesn't get to tell you who you may, may not, or must worship.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

*nods*

His initial question, though, seems to cover the Charter's Equality Rights as well as the Fundamental Freedoms.

The latter covers what you can do. The first covers how you may be treated because of it.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Correction: it covers belonging to the religion you want. Check out the links to the Charter (my response to jsbowden just above). The bit about (not) getting fired over your religion is in a different section.

[vagabond27.livejournal.com]

That real live preacher guy was an AWESOME find, thanks!

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The right to practice your religion, or lack thereof, without interference, so long as it does not contradict the law. The right to know that no laws will be passed regarding the practice of religion - laws are blind to religion, and do not acknowledge it when making rules. In this way, no practice will ever be penalised or rewarded on religious grounds.

That's what freedom of religion gets you.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Ah.

So a priest who refuses to perform a marrage just because the couple is of the same sex doesn't have his desision to do so protected by the charter?

[jerril]

*eyebrow* The law doesn't say that priests have to marry anyone to anyone else. How everyone jumps to that conclusion I DON'T know.

A catholic priest is not required to marry a protestant to a catholic, or a hindu to a hindu, even if asked really nicely. He can say "So sorry, my religion doesn't allow me to." And that's protected. He's not a public servant payed by the government to file the paperwork to make people married. He's just allowed to do soem of that because it's linked to his cultural function.

[jerril]

And to explicitly state it, as people seem to have problems with this:

He also can refuse to mary a plumber to a catholic, a plumber to a computer programmer, or a woman to a woman. He can state "I'm never marrying anyone or anything to anyone or anything ever again." and the law will say "That's nice."

The POPE might be a little cheesed, but that's something else.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Of course he does. Any law requiring him to do something religious would be a violation of the charter.

The gay couple have the right to practice any religion, including one that doesn't allow gays to be married. They can also go find a different priest of the same religion, who WILL marry them.

Remember: Religious marriage = legally irrelevant. I can go sign up to be a Unitarian and have weddings with the next six people I meet, and until I get legal papers saying I'm married, I'm not really married to any of them. Most churches won't hold a marriage ceremony without the legal paperwork, but it's the paperwork that makes you married, not the ceremony.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Laws are blind to religion. Marriage? The religious ceremony? What's that?

(Discussion between The Law, Gay Couple, and Priest:

GC: "Hi, we'd like to complain. You see, the Priest won't marry us."
TL: "I'm sorry?"
P: "I won't marry them. I believe it violates the principles of my religion."
TL: "Come again?"
GC: "He's refusing to marry us because we're gay! That's prejudice!"
P: "I'm acting in accordance with the dictate of my religion! That's protected!"
GC: "Make him marry us! We're legally allowed to be married!"
TL: "You're legally allowed to be--what now? I'm sorry? What is it you want him to do?"
GC: "Marry us."
P: "Marry them."
TL: "...I'm sorry, I'm just not making out the key words here."
GC: "We're allowed to be married!"
TL: "Allowed to be...?"
GC: "Married! To be in a legally recognized union sanctioned by a civil authority!"
TL: "Would you like to file the paperwork here?"
GC: "No! We want to be married by a priest in a church!"
TL: "Are any of you having any of your legal rights, duties, commitments, or contracts interfered with?"
*GC and P look at each other, shrug, shuffle all six feet*
Chorus: "...no."
TL: "Please move along."