Sikhs Allowed To Carry Kirpan (knives) To Olympic Events

[AnnaG]

Yes. Because I see no material existence for religion, I see belief in religion as useless.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by "Because I see no material existence for religion". I see lots of religious material existence. Vatican City is material existence. Churches are material existences. Also, synagogues, mosques, etc.
BTW, people in religions don't purport to believe in religions, they purport to believe in the basis for their religions. There's a huge difference.

It had a use in previous ignorant, dark ages, but now, it is obsolete. So the state should keep it's distance from it. Religion ought to be shunned by modern people.

Funny, even as an agnostic I can see a use for religion for some people. Even my atheist husband sees uses for religion.

All religious books are works of fiction, as real as UFOs with as much physical evidence. Zero. Zip. Nil. Null. Nothing. Nada.

So?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

its because the sir joseph porter types run this country apparently

I wish they did, Johnnny. There are many thongs I would do differently. However, what I have observed is that most people use the authority they have with discretion and with compassion, they see all the sides of the issue, and not just one side.

Indeed, it is only the worst kind of ideologue who will use the power to further his narrow ends. My guess is that even those who oppose permitting the Sikhs to wear kirpan to Olympic events, if they had been on the Olympic Committee, if they had to see all the sides of the issue (which they would if they were members of the committee, and not dogmatically stick to one viewpoint), many of them will come to the same conclusion as Olympic Committee did, they will permit Sikhs to carry the kirpan.

It is one thing to passionately argue one position in a discussion forum. When one is given the authority, that is a different matter altogether, most people use their authority wisely and with discretion, with understanding.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yes. Because I see no material existence for religion, I see belief in religion as useless. It had a use in previous ignorant, dark ages, but now, it is obsolete. So the state should keep it's distance from it. Religion ought to be shunned by modern people.

All religious books are works of fiction, as real as UFOs with as much physical evidence. Zero. Zip. Nil. Null. Nothing. Nada.

Finally we agree on something dumpthemonarchy, hallelujah. I think all the religions are bunk too, I think it is just silly superstition. However, that is a totally different issue from letting Sikhs carry the kirpan.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Finally we agree on something dumpthemonarchy, hallelujah. I think all the religions are bunk too, I think it is just silly superstition. However, that is a totally different issue from letting Sikhs carry the kirpan.

Seems a little illogical. If you think religion is not real, then why bother giving some religious special rights? No one can carry a knife at Olympic events, except one group. I cannot square this circle.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Seems a little illogical. If you think religion is not real, then why bother giving some religious special rights? No one can carry a knife at Olympic events, except one group. I cannot square this circle.

Because Charter guarantees freedom of religion. What that means is that every effort should be made to accommodate the religious beliefs of people. If Sikhs can be permitted to carry kirpan in a safe manner, if safety considerations are answered, there is really no reason to deny the Sikhs the right to carry kirapn.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by "Because I see no material existence for religion". I see lots of religious material existence. Vatican City is material existence. Churches are material existences. Also, synagogues, mosques, etc.
BTW, people in religions don't purport to believe in religions, they purport to believe in the basis for their religions. There's a huge difference.
Funny, even as an agnostic I can see a use for religion for some people. Even my atheist husband sees uses for religion.

So?

A church is not a g/God. I mean people praise "gGod/Allah" etc, they don't praise the church/mosque walls.

If gGod is so real, why can't he give me a measly $50 when I need it? Or a bigger TV? This gGod entity can't do the simplest things. All powerful, of course. Yet, being so all powerful, he/she/it doesn't show him/herself even once to definitively prove he/she is real, has material substance, can engage in a conversation. Fairly simple tests to squash the doubters once and for all.

Science killed gGod/magic and we must continue the progressive work of the scientific revolution and reduce pernicious religious influence in the world.

 

[Johnnny]

SJP if i were on the committe, i would have said no... And/or make one of the arrangments be that they glue the knives to there sheaths. And or give them a plastic novelty kirpan...

in my opinion a religous icon is just that, an icon used to represent something...And it can be made out of anything... Its the idea thats counts

a cross to me can be made of anything,and i dont care what its made out of.... and if they want to show off knives they dont have to be metal but plastic, like tupperware plastic

my opinion


it is stupid we dont let gurkha wear there knives in public even if it tied to there religon, even though they have ceremonial uses

 

[TenPenny]

I wish they did, Johnnny. There are many thongs I would do differently.

There are a few thongs that I'd do differently, too.

 

[Johnnny]

oops nvm wasnt me who said thongs...


hahah sjp wears a thong he admitted it

 

[Cannuck]

Damn spellchecker!!

 

[Johnnny]

one day.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP if i were on the committe, i would have said no... And/or make one of the arrangments be that they glue the knives to there sheaths. And or give them a plastic novelty kirpan...

You don’t know that Johnnny, unless you serve on the Committee. It is one thing to make such a pronouncements when you don’t have any power, it is something else altogether when you do have the power.

People usually use their power responsibly. How many times are people surprised by verdict of a jury? How many times people have said, how could the jury possibly arrive at that verdict? The reason is that usually jurors keep their prejudices outside the courtroom and try to judge the case as dispassionately as they can.

And I think the same thing happens when people get in the position of power (there are exceptions obviously). So the fact that you now hold that opinion doesn’t’ necessarily mean that you will hold the same opinion if you were on the Olympic committee, listened to all sides of the issue and had to reach an unbiased decision.

 

[einmensch]

A degree in History??????

Sir Isaac Newton was profoundly religious, and based much of his numerlogical investigation on biblical texts.....he did depart from the Anglican Church, but was in no way an Athiest.

Copernicus became a Canon of the Catholic Church in 1497...........his research was supported and encouraged by the Pope of the time......Atheist? I don't think so....

And most ludicrous of all, the idea that da Vinci, the painter of The Last Supper was atheist......

These great thinkers were unanimous about one thing....the existence of God.

I agree with you on your stand on the kirpan, only because the right to go armed should certainly not simply be based on a religious pretext.....but you should think before you post.

1 cut and paste to educate you
Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

1 cut and paste to educate you
Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.

Indeed, einmensch, burning at the stake was the Church’s favorite method of dealing with the heretics.

I remember reading a while ago that Church burned a doctor at the stake. His crime? To help a pregnant woman, who was delivering a baby.

In those days the Church doctrine was that nothing must be done to alleviate the labor pains of the woman during child birth. The pains suffered by her was supposed to be Eve’s punishment for leading Adam astray.

One woman was having a particularly difficult childbirth. The doctor in attendance could not stand the woman’s screams. Feeing sorry for her, feeling compassion for her, he gave her some medication to relieve her pain.

For his efforts, he was burned at the stake by the Church.

 

[Outta here]

If you think religion is not real, then why bother giving some religious special rights?

Freedom of religion is not granted according to what you or I believe is true.... as an agnostic, I'll stand up and defend anyone's right to worship whatever or whomever they want... and if necessary, someone will one day stand up and defend my right NOT to worship anyone or anything. This is how freedoms work.

S0 whether we agree with the existence of religion or not, we must do all we can to preserve the right to worship as one sees fit - it is our responsibility to freedom - but the flip side of that responsibility imo, is to ensure that protection is not abused by special interest groups who use our laws to turn what is a right into a privilege accorded to a select few.

Because Charter guarantees freedom of religion. What that means is that every effort should be made to accommodate the religious beliefs of people.

8O I found myself nodding in agreement with ya there for a sec SJP...

If Sikhs can be permitted to carry kirpan in a safe manner, if safety considerations are answered, there is really no reason to deny the Sikhs the right to carry kirapn.

... but you're still going in circles with this. Every effort should NOT be made if it circumvents the rights of others - you completely mangle the concept of freedom with your argument.

 

[L Gilbert]

I wish they did, Johnnny. There are many thongs I would do differently. .........

You do thongs? Maybe TenPenny has a point and you are cute.

 

[L Gilbert]

There's a use for religion right here if you can see it .... It gives you whiners something to whine about.
I think religions provide a balance. Some people have no idea how to acquire a spiritual identity. I think religions provide a beginning for that. The basis for them is BS but as societies, they do provide services of sorts.

 

[Outta here]

You do thongs? Maybe TenPenny has a point and you are cute.

Les! a thong does not a cutie make! Don't make me go find pics!

 

[Spade]

Aren't thongs Canadian for "flip flops"?

 

[Johnnny]

Canadian Slang Dictionary

not in this one