I’m inclined towards that view myself.

@Allamanda That is the trouble with religious symbolism....where do we draw the line between tolerance and compliance in coercion.

It seems we are proving to be a pretty tolerant lot....more so than the Quebec government.

@Marionville I see the example of such huge religious disparity in India with relatively little unrest. I say that and we have a Buddhist/Sikh situation right now. But generally India is a good example of peaceful diversity - the Dalai Lama has mentioned as much more than a few times. If they can do that in Hindustan then why can't we in north america??

@JeffMesser Ah...if we had the answer to that, we would indeed be wise!

@Allamanda no offense but I am going to trust the dalai lama, my personal observations, and those of my friends before you. the Hindu synthesis began in like 500 BCE so I believe they have a decent history of diversity even if there have been conflicts.

@Allamanda I'm very familiar with where the dalai lives. just as I am familiar with the home of sri ramakrishna on the complete opposite border. both espoused religious diversity.

@Allamanda lack of religious diversity? are you familiar with "hinduism"? it's nothing but diverse.

@Allamanda I will just have to agree to disagree with you there. I see people choosing various marga in yoga or following one of the astika dasanas or even nastika like Buddhism or jainism and they're living by those reverent to Shiva as well as those nigama who praise Shakti. Much more diverse than we enjoy in the states.

@JeffMesser I think you are quite wrong in your opinion of Hinduism. The Hindu Nationalism of Narendra Modi, who has just won another election victory has polarised the country more than ever. The Hindus are not the peace loving people you make out...they are just as extreme as any other religion...especially when it gets mixed in with nationalistic fervour. The horrors committed by both sides at the time of Independence showed that both Muslim and Hindu alike could and would be prepared to slaughter their fellow man. I don’t believe using India as an example of religious tolerance was wise or correct.

@Marionville I don't believe the conflict that the 2 of you cite is a result of religious diversity. It is some other difference. Or just difference in general. Our brains operate on discerning differences so it's not like we'll just suddenly stop doing that and declare everyone officially the same. Even when we all have the same skin color some other difference will take its' place as our hate.

Too far, but how do we decide what is too far or not far enough?

@Marionville The same way we decide everything else.

@Marionville
Preventing government from favoring one religion over others is not too far. Using government to suppress religious expression altogether is too far.

@skado yes.

It’s true...the bill passed last week, they were discussing it on BBC TV this morning.

Maybe too much so, but how do we judge where to draw the line?

@Marionville
I don’t know anything at all about Canadian law, but the law I live under got it about right I think.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

This Canadian law appears to me to “prohibit the free exercise thereof.” I can’t think of any moral or ethical reason why a person in a public position shouldn’t be allowed to dress as they ordinarily would, unless perhaps in the case where uniforms are required, but that should not need a separate law. It would just be a requirement imposed by the employer; the job applicant would have to weigh the consequences before accepting the job.

It doesn’t surprise me that a right-leaning politician likes this law, but I don’t see how it serves separation of religion and state, as long as all religions were equally allowed to dress as their beliefs require.

Looks to me like an excuse to keep minorities out of power. Catholics are not, to my knowledge, required by their religion to wear a cross.

@skado I hardly see public employees as constituting the upper echelons of power. Now, if they said "candidates in elections and executive directors..." that would be another matter. The motives behind the legislation have no bearing on whether the legislation itself is good or not.

@Gareth
I didn’t say anything about upper echelons. Reducing employment opportunities for minorities is without question a power play. The motive behind the legislation wouldn’t necessarily determine whether the law is good or bad, but when stated reasons don’t hold water, it’s natural to look for motives. I personally don’t see how religious dress conflicts with separation of church and state as long as one religion is not treated differently from others. Seems to me sentiments here are really more anti-religious than religious freedom oriented.

@skado I think you have to treat religions differently as long as they are different. The people affected by this legislation are no more minorities than naturists, bell-ringers or gardeners are a minority imho. If I'm a Sikh and I consider carrying my knife to be a mandatory religious requirement then I accept that I am not going to be allowed to board a commercial airliner. It's down to me. As for being anti-religion - that's fine by me. I wouldn't want anyone advertising any religion with my taxes.

@Gareth
The reasons for restricting weapons are a separate consideration from general appearance. The Sikh in your scenario would not be prevented from carrying a knife because of reasons of religious differentiation, but because of safety concerns. Head scarves and jewelry present no such hazard. Do you want people advertising red hair, or gold-framed eyeglasses with your tax dollars? I’m happy for my taxes to advertise diversity.

@skado Point taken. When a religion insists that some symbol of identity be displayed by its members and that religion itself espouses diversity and equality for all people then I may reconsider my position, but I think that is a long way off.

Wearing the outward symbols of a particular religion is showing a badge of being apart from others and the opposite of inclusive...it separates people and and such can only be divisive in my opinion. In their personal space they can display and wear any badge they like, but not in the public work sector. I am with this law.

I think so.

Too far in your opinion then? What about a veil?

I may not be the wisest move.

I agree,

Just don your Superman attire and intimidate them back!

There are a number of ways to respond to that. If you are uncomfortable and don't want to be confrontational, try to find a less religious doctor. If you don't mind or enjoy being confrontational, get up in their grill. Let them know their obvious bias bothers you. If you enjoy being confrontational and like f***ing with people, find out what religious bent they have real problems with and pretend to belong to that group. The Church of Satan is always a reliable choice and likely won't require any compromise of your principles.