• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society

George Wallace said:
Another thing; has anyone known a Jehovah's Wintess to have joined the CAF?  It is totally against every belief they have.

When I was in Work Point back in the late 70's I knew a guy who converted to Jehovah Witness. And as far as I can remember he was still in a year or so afterwards when I remustered.
 
milnews.ca said:
Goofy question:  how does someone serve as a JEH (Jehovah's Wintess) in the CF, given the potential of needing a blood transfusion (which the religion bans)?

I'd venture a guess that there probably no Jehovah's Witnesses serving.....I could be wrong.
 
milnews.ca said:
Goofy question:  how does someone serve as a JEH (Jehovah's Wintess) in the CF, given the potential of needing a blood transfusion (which the religion bans)?

I think they ban being in the military in the first place, don't they?  Allegiance only to God's Kingdom, and all that.
 
There are several old topics about this (well Wicca, but that gets lumped in with Pagan).  It's actually something I have wondering as well, since I have looking into/researching Asatru/Norse-Germanic Paganism, and how that would play put if I decided to get back in.
 
milnews.ca said:
Goofy question:  how does someone serve as a JEH (Jehovah's Wintess) in the CF, given the potential of needing a blood transfusion (which the religion bans)?

I have some in-laws who are JEH and I don't think that could ever happen because they have a thing against uniforms of any kind, even Girl Guides, so they would never join the military.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
...
I mean I know Catholics that actually had sex before they were married..................with me!!  Bazinga..........

-Well, that's TWO sins!
-Bazinga!
 
As a Wiccan whose also in the military, I can say Pagan in general is allowed on the tags. My tags read: WIC. The reason I know this is because I went through Identification Services HQ to find the answer after my own issues. It's not just the CF Dress Instructions that you have to reference, but also the Religions In Canada publication put out by the government. This particular one does not include Paganism, but gives you an idea on the religious accommodation policies and are both excellent references.

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/dn-nd/D2-147-2008-eng.pdf

The attached document is provided by National Defense Identification Services as the updated list of religions and their abbreviations allowed  on the tags.
 
George Wallace said:
Another thing; has anyone known a Jehovah's Wintess to have joined the CAF?  It is totally against every belief they have.

Yes, one of my youngest boy's school friends.  At least his mother raised him in that faith.  Can't say if he kept up with it once he became an adult.
 
Regarding "& in Canadian Society",

Adding a news item: "Should safety trump religious freedom?"

Jun 14, 2016

Should turban-wearing Sikhs be exempt from motorcycle helmet laws?
http://www.680news.com/2016/06/14/should-turban-wearing-sikhs-be-exempt-from-motorcycle-helmet-laws/

That sensitive topic is being broached by the provincial government as it prepares to debate making turban-wearing Sikhs exempt from current motorcycle helmet laws.

Bill 194 seeks to amend the Ontario Highway Traffic Act to allow Sikh motorcyclists who have unshorn hair, or habitually wear a turban, to ride helmet-less.

Sikhs are allowed to ride without a helmet in British Columbia and Manitoba.
 

Attachments

  • sikh-bikes.jpg
    sikh-bikes.jpg
    72.2 KB · Views: 330
mariomike said:
Regarding "& in Canadian Society",

Adding a news item: "Should safety trump religious freedom?"

Jun 14, 2016

Should turban-wearing Sikhs be exempt from motorcycle helmet laws?
http://www.680news.com/2016/06/14/should-turban-wearing-sikhs-be-exempt-from-motorcycle-helmet-laws/

That sensitive topic is being broached by the provincial government as it prepares to debate making turban-wearing Sikhs exempt from current motorcycle helmet laws.

Bill 194 seeks to amend the Ontario Highway Traffic Act to allow Sikh motorcyclists who have unshorn hair, or habitually wear a turban, to ride helmet-less.

Sikhs are allowed to ride without a helmet in British Columbia and Manitoba.

Didn't this already get looked at and thrown out in Ontario a few years back?

No! Absolutely not! I am very much pro religious-tolerance, and believe in accommodating religious preferences/practices wherever it is possible. But this is far beyond the line that I would draw.
 
Lumber said:
No! Absolutely not! I am very much pro religious-tolerance, and believe in accommodating religious preferences/practices wherever it is possible. But this is far beyond the line that I would draw.

Why? Can't adults make their own choices?
 
Loachman said:
Why? Can't adults make their own choices?

Yes,  but if history has shown me anything,  they can't make good decisions.
 
Loachman said:
Why? Can't adults make their own choices?

That's what we said in 1976 when the seat-belt fines came in.  :)

Lumber said:
Yes,  but if history has shown me anything,  they can't make good decisions.

Until the fine came in, my mother refused to wear her safety belt - it was just a lap belt back then - because she said it wrinkled her dress when she went shopping.  :)

And she's still driving!
 
Lumber said:
Yes,  but if history has shown me anything,  they can't make good decisions.

So what? It should still be their choice, and their choice alone.

Doing anything without proper protective equipment is never a good thing, but, in this case, nobody else is likely to be harmed by a helmetless motorcycle rider, and the state should therefore butt out.
 
Loachman said:
So what? It should still be their choice, and their choice alone.

Doing anything without proper protective equipment is never a good thing, but, in this case, nobody else is likely to be harmed by a helmetless motorcycle rider, and the state should therefore butt out.

Disagreed. First off, society as a whole has to pay for the medical treatment associated with motor vehicle injuries. Wearing a helmet is likely to considerably reduce the degree of critical injury.

Secondly, if someone wipes out on a motorcycle, you've probably got paramedics and police responding to that. If someone chooses not to wear their bucket, splits their head open and leaves chunks ont he roadway, that's trauma that first reponders may have trouble dealing with. They, and potentially society pay for the impact of that driver's poor decisions.

Driving is privilege, not a right. There are reasonable restrictions on licensed conduct in order to control the harm and risks to the public at large. If an adult wants to make choices not to follow those laws, so be it. But when you choose the behaviour you choose the consequences, and I'm fine with the consequences in some cases being a hefty fine / demerit points to dissuade stupid choices that negatively impact the public.
 
Sikhs have no issue wearing helmets to go to war. They should exercise the same caution when riding a motorcycle.
 
Brihard said:
Disagreed. First off, society as a whole has to pay for the medical treatment associated with motor vehicle injuries. Wearing a helmet is likely to considerably reduce the degree of critical injury.

And also require society's payment for a lifetime of care in the case of an incapacitated yet living person who would otherwise have died. I'd doubt that anybody's actually conducted a decent study of that aspect.

Brihard said:
Secondly, if someone wipes out on a motorcycle, you've probably got paramedics and police responding to that. If someone chooses not to wear their bucket, splits their head open and leaves chunks ont he roadway, that's trauma that first reponders may have trouble dealing with. They, and potentially society pay for the impact of that driver's poor decisions.

I'll buy that one.[/quote]
 
Brihard said:
Secondly, if someone wipes out on a motorcycle, you've probably got paramedics and police responding to that. If someone chooses not to wear their bucket, splits their head open and leaves chunks ont he roadway, that's trauma that first reponders may have trouble dealing with. They, and potentially society pay for the impact of that driver's poor decisions.

Our department took that into consideration before we left the academy. They subwayed our recruit class down the old morgue, when it was still on Lombard St., to watch autopsies. They also  showed us some of the old favorites like "Mechanised Death", "Red Asphalt", "Highways of Agony" etc.
Waste basket in the aisle for those who needed it.
( When video-tape came along later, they actually archived quite a private collection of their own. )

They really wanted to be sure that we understood what we were getting ourselves into. If you showed signs of stress ( we had not heard of PTSD back then ) during probation, you were let go.

Regarding Sikhs and motorcycle helmets.

As far as I am concerned, it's a tempest in a teapot compared to how much road safety has improved since when I hired on back in 1972.

There were no helmet laws back then for anyone, if I recall correctly.  For sure there were no seat-belt laws until 1976. 

No laminated and tempered glass windshields, airbags, crumple zones, side-impact beams, collapsible steering columns, padded dash and side boards, child car seats, improved fuel system integrity and fire retardant materials ( "the barbeque that seats four" is no longer on the road ), MADD and strict DUI enforcement, more convertibles ( before A/C in cars became common ), "suicide doors" and car doors with serious jamming problems on impact, etc...

You would almost think they are trying to put us out of business.  :)





















 
mariomike said:
You would almost think they are trying to put us out of business.  :)

Oh no.  There are more than enough morons to ensure you guys will never worry about getting laid off (as an institution).
 
Back
Top