US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[notyoueither]

Oh, and he could well be fired by the electorate for being too much of a fundie.

[KrazyHorse]

And if a federal employee (say an FBI agent) starts giving sermons to everybody he interviews in the course of his job then the courts will order the FBI to make him stop, whether or not they want to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And if a federal employee (say an FBI agent) starts giving sermons to everybody he interviews in the course of his job then the courts will order the FBI to make him stop, whether or not they want to.

During interviews perhaps, because it makes it seem you need to be a Christian to get the job, however, during speeches/briefings to other agents, he can quote all the Scripture he wants.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And if a federal employee (say an FBI agent) starts giving sermons to everybody he interviews in the course of his job then the courts will order the FBI to make him stop, whether or not they want to.

That's a point, but an FBI agent is not being paid to give sermons. A politician is being paid to lead. Where that politician leads is between him and the voters, so long as he stays within the bounds of the relevant constitution.

Do you think that PMs of Canada are precluded from expressions involving God?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're claiming that he's not bound by the Constitution because his freedom of expression gets him out of jail.

Of course he is, but saying 'God bless America' isn't a law that establishes religion, or even an official act.

He is technically violating the Constitution by endorsing a particular brand of religion while acting in his official capacity.

Bull****. No Constitutional scholar would even give credance to that argument. A president personally endorsing a religion has nothing to do with legally establishing a religion.

Well, under US law he is quite free to express his religious preferences. He'll have a bit harder time passing laws that shore his God up and exclude the divinities of others. That's the difference.

Bingo.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't mean interviews with potential employees; I meant interviews with victims (had trouble coming up with an example and that was the best I could do when fed employees interact with the public).

during speeches/briefings to other agents, he can quote all the Scripture he wants

Uh...I really don't think that's correct.

1) He's creating some sort of hostile work environment that I'm sure would get shot full of holes by the EEE (is that the right acronym?)

2) He's wasting taxpayer time and money by quoting Scripture while employed by the government

[Imran Siddiqui]

I meant interviews with victims

Why wouldn't he be able to say things like "God is with you as he was with.... ", etc.

1) He's creating some sort of hostile work environment that I'm sure would get shot full of holes by the EEE (is that the right acronym?)

Only if they can prove that he is using his religion improperly. Such as him advancing people with that religion or not promoting others.

2) He's wasting taxpayer time and money by quoting Scripture while employed by the government

Is this a serious argument?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's a point, but an FBI agent is not being paid to give sermons. A politician is being paid to lead. Where that politician leads is between him and the voters, so long as he stays within the bounds of the relevant constitution.

Do you think that PMs of Canada are precluded from expressions involving God?

I doubt it, but AFAIK we have no express clause prohibiting government from having anything to do with religion.

As a matter of fact, the nominal Catholic/Protestant public school system which existed till recently in Quebec would have been quite illegal down there.

The difference between here and there is that while they have stronger prohibitions against ties between church and state, our government is actually secular, while theirs tries to find loopholes.

And if you'd read earlier, I wouldn't support any effort to actually enforce some sort of prohibition on stuff like that. It's not worth it, and also is rather dangerous (I'm more inclined to err on the side of freedom of speech for a pol than for anybody else).

[Ned]

It is interesting that any and all discussions like this end up discussing the United States.

But just one more point or question. What if Chirac were in charge of Iraq instead of the US. Would he try to impose his brand of secularism on the larglely Muslim Iraqi's. If not, why not?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You're claiming that he's not bound by the Constitution because his freedom of expression gets him out of jail.

Of course he is, but saying 'God bless America' isn't a law that establishes religion, or even an official act.

It's an act by an official in his official capacity, no?

Either: a) he's a rogue agent or
b) he's actually expressing the wishes of government

Which is it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's an act by an official in his official capacity, no?

It is words by an official in a speech. Nothing close to a law or judicial proceeding or any action at all.

Either: a) he's a rogue agent or
b) he's actually expressing the wishes of government

Neither. He is expressing his own personal beliefs while acting as President. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that. Especially when we ask our politicians to express their own personal beliefs in speeches and debates.

Do you consider everything your PM says in a speech (to supporters say) to be official government policy? He makes no jokes during his speeches?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I meant interviews with victims

Why wouldn't he be able to say things like "God is with you as he was with.... ", etc.

1) He's creating some sort of hostile work environment that I'm sure would get shot full of holes by the EEE (is that the right acronym?)

Only if they can prove that he is using his religion improperly. Such as him advancing people with that religion or not promoting others.

No, that's why I said "creating a hostile work environment". Does that apply only to sexual harassment or to other things as well? Say I were to start making sex jokes in class. Even if I don't give people bad marks when they don't respond, I can still be really ****ed by what I've done.

2) He's wasting taxpayer time and money by quoting Scripture while employed by the government

Is this a serious argument?

Uh...duh. If an FBI agent takes his team aside for an hour every day to hold group prayer sessions then I'm pretty sure that the courts would have something to say about it.

[notyoueither]

For our recent PM, many of his speeches were jokes, unintentional though they may have been...

The truth will never be the same.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, that's why I said "creating a hostile work environment". Does that apply only to sexual harassment or to other things as well? Say I were to start making sex jokes in class. Even if I don't give people bad marks when they don't respond, I can still be really ****ed by what I've done.

Hostile work environment definetly requires more than quoting Scripture while giving speeches he is required to give to his agents. For one, it isn't 'severe' enough. To qualify for severity he would have to give the impression that only those people that follow his religion get promotions.

If an FBI agent takes his team aside for an hour every day to hold group prayer sessions then I'm pretty sure that the courts would have something to say about it.

Strawman, anyone? Who said anything about an FBI agent taking his team aside for a prayer session? We are talking about a speech to agents that an agent makes as part of his job and during it he quotes Scripture. There is nothing wrong or illegal about that.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Neither. He is expressing his own personal beliefs while acting as President. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that. Especially when we ask our politicians to express their own personal beliefs in speeches and debates.

Do you consider everything your PM says in a speech (to supporters say) to be official government policy? He makes no jokes during his speeches?

When he's talking to supporters then he's not acting on my behalf. He's either talking as head of the Liberals or as a private individual. When he's addressing Parliament then he's acting as PM, and I expect him to be more circumspect.

I'm not sure if Mr. Martin has ever made a joke or not, but I am certain that they haven't been funny.

On the other hand, Mr. Chrétien was quite funny, if unintentionally so.