[thenorwegian]

As an immigrant to Canada, we have to adjust to the cultural differences, language, the laws and the religion. There is not much difference between our two countries, so i will use our two countries as an example of this crazy thing called religion.

In Norway and Canada there is now a debate going regarding freedom of religion, the top dog of all human rights.
In Norway it is about muslim police woman wearing the hijab, in Canada it is the Sikhs wearing ceremonial knife at school, called a kirpan.

A school in Montreal, Quebec, prohibited him from wearing his kirpan on school property, fearing the possibility of violence. Others schools in Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia allow the wearing of a kirpan, which orthodox Sikhs believe is compulsory for all baptized members of the faith.

Apparently this is a case of symbolism, all over Europe the use of veil have been looked at exactly that. In the UK all the newspapers wrote about a teacher called Aishah Azmi. She got a job at a primary school run by Church of England. During the job interview she was wearing a "middle class" uniform. Since have no one seen her. From first day at work she been wearing face covering veil. She was ordered to remove the veil, but she refused. She was suspended with full pay and on top of that she got financial compensation.

But Amzi meant she was a victim of religious discrimination and harassment and the case will end up in the European Court of Human Rights.

In Canada A Victorian parliamentary committee has also given the green light for Muslim students to wear hijabs in the state's classrooms. The inquiry into uniforms found all schools should accommodate clothing or other items that are religiously significant.

The Education and Training Committee report recommended that schools should work with the Sikh community to allow male students to carry a kirpan - a small, curved ornamental steel dagger carried by all initiated Sikh men.

The debate about the hijabs is more about the crisis within the multicultural ideology and especially in the matter of Islam.
The multiculturalism is more a western denomination or theory that is building on acknowledgment of other beliefs from the idea that they all are equivalence. Problematic adversatives would be resolved in the melting pot, while our society became more and more multicultural, we the people should be more and more tolerant.

Now the opposite is happening.


The children of the rainbow have turned their face against the half-moon. Understanding and tolerance is declining, both parts have shown to be insufficient toward a religious dogmatic, toward a difference witch is greater then what WE can accept because it goes toward our own values.

We seem to believe that religion is so much more personal then all other identities, like political or ethnic. The Norwegian government would never allow a police officer wearing a symbol of anarchy or an inuit wearing their hats. So why the hijab or the kirpan? Because they mean religious identity is above all other identities.

We over focus on religion, especially when it comes to immigrants and their community.

For example, the norwegian government is trowing money and attention toward muslim imams. They is raised to important partners in dialogs between the islam community and the norwegian government. The government think they are learned muslim priests and that they talk on behalf of all norwegian muslims. The truth is that often the imam is nothing more then a janitor at the mosque with little or no education at all.

The general secretary for the islamic council adverser that the hijab is mandatory for all muslim woman, also within the police force. If not, the freedom of religion will fade and the dream for all muslim woman will be broken. They will feel like second rate citizens squeezed out of the norwegian society ... Big words.

The general secretary for the islamic council have learned not to step on norwegian tender toes. They is not always this fast, in november 2007 the islamic council asked to take a stand against the death penalty toward homosexuals. They could not answer that question and sent it to the european fatwa council, witch you would believe would be the same as the vatican is for catholics. The european fatwa council is based in Dublin and the "moral" leader is a person called Yosuf al-Qaradawi. In 2006 he said to Al-Jazeera, the news station that homosexual should have the same punishment like all other perverted. Al-Qaradawi is also active in the Muslim Brotherhood that want sharia laws. Recently this moral guru said that "Allah sent us Hitler to punish the jews".

At the same time the islamic council in norway screams about individual rights and freedom of speech in the case of the hijab and so for the case of the kirpan in Canada. Norwegians and Canadians is listening. Behind is the all to familiar mantra about dialog, also with people we should just tell to shut the hell up.

In the coran is it not written that muslim woman should wear the hijab, but many woman want to wear it because in some environments it is more a fashion then a religion. Many muslim men require "their" woman to wear the veil. Most they reminds me of sick jealous men, but then again they are often viewed as tyrannic abusers. So why is it acceptable when we scream religion?

Religious congregations have, belive it or not, exemption from the Gender Equality Act and the law against discrimination. Here you can discriminate woman, gays whom ever you want in the name of freedom of religion, The Boss of All Human Rights.

[canada86]

i think you're right

[martin14]

thenorwegian thenorwegian:

Religious congregations have, belive it or not, exemption from the Gender Equality Act and the law against discrimination. Here you can discriminate woman, gays whom ever you want in the name of freedom of religion, The Boss of All Human Rights.

with regards to this, at least, no one forces you to participate in church.
membership is supposedly voluntary.

[RUEZ]

martin14 martin14:

membership is supposedly voluntary.

There are a lot of religions, but membership in the Christian church is entirely voluntary.

[martin14]

RUEZ RUEZ:

martin14 martin14:

membership is supposedly voluntary.

There are a lot of religions, but membership in the Christian church is entirely voluntary.

oh I was getting to involuntary membership,
but I wanted some more comments to fill up,
and I'm working on dinner

[thenorwegian]

RUEZ RUEZ:

martin14 martin14:

membership is supposedly voluntary.

There are a lot of religions, but membership in the Christian church is entirely voluntary.

that depends on the country you live in. Take my own country for example. The moment you are born you are enrolled in the state Christian church.

[martin14]

thenorwegian thenorwegian:

RUEZ RUEZ:

martin14 martin14:

membership is supposedly voluntary.

There are a lot of religions, but membership in the Christian church is entirely voluntary.

that depends on the country you live in. Take my own country for example. The moment you are born you are enrolled in the state Christian church.

?
can't see the Muzzies accepting that idea too well
maybe that applies if you are a native Norweigan..

[thenorwegian]

Children born by immigrants in norway is enrolled in the state churches as everyone else, but if you choose not to baptize your kid, the records will not be updated and the kid will no longer be in the church. This can be a problem if you one day want to marry and have a church wedding, as you can not because your no longer a member of the church. The same applies to immigrants that is not in the state church and want to baptize their kids. Then they have to be baptized first. But the same apply in canada. My cousin who married a Montreal woman could not have a church wedding here in Quebec because he was not baptized in Norway, and not catholic.

The state church system seems to be quite typical of the Scandinavian countries. But it may be noticed that in eastern Europe the orthodox churches have to some extent also served as a kind of state church. Orthodox churches tend to combine religion and nationalism.

In islamic countries the political and religious forces are more or less sharply divided, but in a number of cases islam has been able to obtain a privileged position. In theory islam does not admit of a separation of state and mosque, but practice is generally quite different. In islamic countries secularists are generally not organized/allowed at all. Democracy and the practice of human rights is in islamic countries more or less none existing. Just look at afghanistan and the latest event regarding the new law.


As for the "Muzzies", more and more of them choose to do home birth.

[thenorwegian]

That is correct. However the records help the church getting funded by the gov. The more people in the church records the more money it gets.

[Lemmy]

Don't hardcore Norwegian death-metal fans like to burn Norwegian churches for sport? The fundamental difference between modern Christianity and Islam is that Islam has NO separation between church and state. If you went to Iran or Indonesia and asked someone what the difference is between "religion" and "law", they'd have no answer. They wouldn't have the first clue what you were talking about. They have no understanding of that distinction that we make in western society.