Should Authorities Have the Power to Ask Your Religion?

[lone wolf]

Taxi drivers being what they are it is entirely possible that the driver has some obviously religious paraphernalia hanging about and the cop was simply curious.

As long as his dancing elephants don't obstruct the view of the meter from the back seat, whassa problem?

 

[Liberalman]

Yes just think of the embarrassment of the RCMP if they offered a ham sandwich to a Rabbi so finding ones religion is important

 

[taxslave]

Yes just think of the embarrassment of the RCMP if they offered a ham sandwich to a Rabbi so finding ones religion is important

The RCMP might steal a sandwich from someone but giving one away is highly unlikely

 

[Dexter Sinister]

They have the best cookies.

True, but it's the pie that really draws 'em in.

On the OP, I think asking about religious affiliation on a census or other social science research type survey is perfectly legitimate, but as religious affiliation is one of the grounds on which discrimination is forbidden in most modern societies, I'd say no other authority is entitled to ask.

 

[L Gilbert]

To be clear, I am not referring to the context of a census or a like activity.

The topic arose in The Honourable the Senate, when The Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth C.M. (Cluny, Ontario) brought the issue up in question period. The honourable senator mentioned that her taxi driver, earlier that day, had been asked by a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to identify his religion at a checkpoint.

Senator Ruth raised the issue with Senator the Honourable Marjory LeBreton P.C. (Ontario), the Leader of Her Majesty's Government in the Senate. The Leader of the Government was asked whether the Government had directed the RCMP to seek to identify citizens' religions in the performance of their duties; the Leader of the Government committed to return to the Senate with a response at a later time.

So what do you think?

Check out the Debates of the Senate, where the issue arose, here.

Compelling an answer to the question, no. Asking for an answer, yes. Compelling an atheist to answer what religion she/he belongs to may elicit silence, which may get the RCMP officer a little annoyed. Asking would likely elicit an answer of some sort.
Personally, I don't care who knows.

 

[Spade]

Ask, but compel an answer? No.

 

[Machjo]

To be clear, I am not referring to the context of a census or a like activity.

The topic arose in The Honourable the Senate, when The Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth C.M. (Cluny, Ontario) brought the issue up in question period. The honourable senator mentioned that her taxi driver, earlier that day, had been asked by a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to identify his religion at a checkpoint.

Senator Ruth raised the issue with Senator the Honourable Marjory LeBreton P.C. (Ontario), the Leader of Her Majesty's Government in the Senate. The Leader of the Government was asked whether the Government had directed the RCMP to seek to identify citizens' religions in the performance of their duties; the Leader of the Government committed to return to the Senate with a response at a later time.

So what do you think?

Check out the Debates of the Senate, where the issue arose, here.

I voted 'no' because of the word 'compel. Sure there may be cases where it might even be common courtesy to ask. for instance, if you'll be offering food, do you want kosher, halal, vegetarian, etc.

Compelling identification is a different matter.

Taxi drivers being what they are it is entirely possible that the driver has some obviously religious paraphernalia hanging about and the cop was simply curious.

That doesn't fall under the category of compulsion though.

Yes just think of the embarrassment of the RCMP if they offered a ham sandwich to a Rabbi so finding ones religion is important

But if the rabbi refuses to answer his religion, then the cop should not compel him and just offer him the ham sandwich instead.

 

[Niflmir]

sure why not?? people are offended by everything these days...
especially since religious extremism is the biggest threat to our liberty.

Actually, base rate fallacy arising from religious profiling (even if accurate) is the biggest threat to our safety while knee jerk reactions to some religious people's terrorism is the biggest threat to our liberty.

We would be a lot more free if people had simply chosen not to react to terrorism. You'd still be able to make jokes about bombs in airports. There wouldn't be no fly lists. There would be no full body scanners. You wouldn't have to throw away a bottle of Scotch you bought at duty-free just because you are routed through Heathrow.