Tag: religion

Categories
Opinions

An honest mistake blown out of proportion

Photo by user Ryk Neethling on Flickr

The term “religious” shopper took on a literal meaning last week when Pastor Caleb Kaltenbach, browsing at Costco, noticed that the retail giant had labelled their inventory of Bibles as “fiction.” This observation and Kaltenbach’s subsequent tweets incited a very strong reaction among some Christians.

Photo by user Ryk Neethling on Flickr

Kaltenbach later explained that he was more intrigued than offended over the matter but regardless, Costco issued a public apology, blamed a labelling oversight in the distribution department, and stated that they “should have caught the mistake” before the holy books hit the shelves in Simi Valley, California.

Customers, however, continue to have mixed reactions. Non-believers are saluting the company for “taking a stance” against organized religion, while others are staging boycotts and expressing their anger via social media. Angry tweets ranged from people asking whether this would have happened with the Koran, and also people vowing to no longer spend money at the giant retailer.

Those that have reached out on the Internet, calling the incident “ironic” and “hilarious,” are the ones who have the right idea. Those who are outraged are blowing the incident completely out of proportion. Kaltenbach stated to Fox News that “what Costco did doesn’t seem too tolerant,” insinuating that the company was perhaps provoked by an unknown agenda.

In reality, this was exactly what company representatives claimed it was: an oversight. Costco is the second largest retailer in the United States, carrying thousands of products in their stores at any given time. With the volume of inventory being shipped in and out of warehouses, it isn’t inconceivable that a product or two put onto shelves is mislabelled.

The public isn’t outraged about the labelling alone, they are outraged that a multinational company seems to be mocking the text on which their whole belief system is based. The assumption is ridiculous, seeing as Costco wouldn’t stand to gain anything by making this kind of statement. Large companies are largely focused on their imports, profit margin and marketing techniques. It would be very bizarre if board meetings discussed strategies to blatantly enrage devout, God-fearing citizens.

The labelling is a very minute detail, and the controversy is only stemming from the fact that it is a religious book. Some groups don’t believe that the text can be realistically categorized anywhere. An article for the Canadian Atheist’s website claims that a “fiction section is for deliberate fiction,” and the Bible shouldn’t be labelled non-fiction on the grounds that it is “just badly flawed from the perspective of history, science, philosophy or indeed common sense.”

Ultimately, credit should be given to Costco for actually carrying the Bible among their other books. One would think that committed Christians would be happy that the word of God is available in a store primarily known for their economy sized packs of Gatorade and Kraft Dinner.

If people want to get lathered up about big companies and their policies, redirect the focus to important issues that affect our world and the people in it, like work conditions, environmental preservation, or international fair trade.

A one-inch sticker on a Bible should not shake Christian religious convictions. The simple, realistic solution would be to just peel it off and move on. Although, given the intensity of the reaction, fundamentalists may begin lobbying for a new commandment: thou shalt not mislabel.

Categories
Opinions

There’s plenty of barbershops in the sea

Graphic by Jennifer Kwan.
Graphic by Jennifer Kwan.

Canada prides itself on its multiculturalism, opening its doors wide to immigrants from countries all over the globe. With them, they bring their suitcases filled with culture, beliefs, values and religion. As Canada becomes more and more diverse, its multiculturalism has proven to be both a blessing and, for some people, a burden.

Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto recently found itself in the middle of a human rights dispute after the barbers refused to cut Faith McGregor’s hair back in June. The shop is run by Muslims, whose religion prohibits them from cutting a woman’s hair, unless they are a family member.

McGregor filed a human rights complaint and told the CBC that she wants “the shop to be cited and forced to give haircuts in the fashion they provide [barbershop style] to any woman, or man that asks for one.” She also wants the shop to set up a sign stating that they will serve both men and women.

Now, here is where our problem lies. We have two sets of rights butting heads with each other; the right to religious freedom and McGregor’s right as a woman to not be denied service based on her gender. This cannot be solved with a ‘my rights are more important than yours’ attitude. Barbara Hall, the Head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, told the CBC that “no right is absolute.”

There is something about McGregor’s story that irks me. In August, the men of the barbershop came forward and offered McGregor a haircut from a willing professional. McGregor refused and according to the National Post, she said that, “now it’s bigger than what occurred with me that one day, in one afternoon.”

Bigger? Frankly, it wasn’t a big issue in the first place. There is also the argument circulating that McGregor was refused because she wanted a “men’s haircut.” That has nothing to do with it. The barbers did not refuse to cut her hair because of the length she desired. Their refusal was based on their values and that alone.

A part of me is actually bothered that this so-called violation of human rights is gaining so much attention. There are much bigger fish to fry, especially when religion is involved. It is not as if McGregor could not walk down the street and find another barbershop or salon that would be more than willing to cut her precious locks.

It is not uncommon to find salons and estheticians that advertise themselves as “women only.” If a man walked in looking to get his eyebrows groomed and was refused, would he file a complaint? Probably not, because the man can more-than-likely find another esthetician to tame his brows.

Ultimately, the men were not discriminating because they “disrespect” women, a stereotype that a lot of Muslim men have to live with. People seem to forget that many religions preach male dominance, but not everyone that follows that religion abides by this. The men simply refused out of modesty and they have the right to do so.

McGregor is, in my opinion, overreacting. If we are going to learn to live together in Canada, we need to be a little more open-minded. I do agree that for the most part, people need to integrate into Canadian society. However, with the influx of different cultures and religions, these cases will be more common and they aren’t as black and white as they used to be.

Categories
Opinions

My religion is better than yours

Photo via Flickr.
Photo via Flickr.

Oh Canada. Our country’s government is ready to cut the ribbon on a new $5 million federal office within the Department of Foreign Affairs, an Office of Religious Freedoms.

Now, I am not a political expert. However, I read a lot to stay informed, and I also have a good friend named logic. She tells me that the one thing we have no need for is the ORF, at least the one the Conservative government has planned.

Religious freedom means something different to everyone. The issue here is that the purpose of this office is so vague. Does it mean that the government is out to protect those who want to have a space to practice their beliefs? Last time I checked, this already exists; it’s called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government believes that religious minorities overseas need protection. Fine. However, many news agencies are reporting that the majority of the people involved come from a Judeo/Christian background. In fact, according to the Toronto Sun and CBC, the Department of Foreign Affairs held a “closed-door” meeting having to do with the ORF last fall, but failed to invite “Muslim, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and First Nation religious leaders.”

Well, what’s the point then? This poses a serious threat for bias within the office, and that could do much more harm than good. Whatever happened to secularity? The Canadian government isn’t supposed to be filled with missionaries.

“I think Canada doesn’t really know what to do with religion,” said Dr Susan Palmer, a sociologist and religion professor at Concordia and Dawson College.

Palmer said she believes that an office like this has “a lot of potential if people in the office are educated and not partisan.” She thinks that trained religious scholars and historians should be the ones calling the shots.

Problems with bias were seen in the 1990s when the United States opened up a similar office called the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom. The office was called out as being dedicated to not only protecting, but also promoting Christianity in other countries. If not done and dealt with properly, this is very well what could happen with the Canadian office.

Here is what we do need. First off, education. Religion is barely present in the education system. Palmer believes that providing a “solid knowledge” of world religions can be very beneficial. The media shapes a lot of what we think of certain religions, and this has obviously proven to have a negative impact.

Second, I think the government should be trying to protect people from the potential threat of religion. Work with other countries to separate church and state. People find themselves violently fighting for this, so why can’t Canada promote this in a peaceful manner? I have nothing against religion on a personal level, but those in power who use it as a manipulative tool are oppressing far too many people. While one government shouldn’t tell another what to do, I think certain circumstances call for it, especially when human rights are on the line.

The way I see it, no one should be held prisoner in the clutches of religion, and those who want to practice it should be able to do so without being persecuted by ignorant generalizations. It’s a two-way street.

Categories
News

ConU ambiguous on wearing of kirpan

While the debate over wearing a kirpan in public has heated up since Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously voted to ban it from its premises last month, the dagger worn by Sikhs as a religious object is welcome on campus at Concordia, at least for now.

Although the university has a policy that bans “all weapons” from campus, this clause does not specifically include the kirpan, wrote media relations advisor Fiona Downey in an email, which further indicated that Concordia has no intention of implementing a kirpan ban in the near future.

“Given that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a ban on a kirpan at a high school was invalid and infringed on freedom of religion and given that Concordia has never had an incident involving a kirpan, Concordia does not consider the kirpan worn for religious purposes to be a ‘weapon,’” said Downey.

However, should an incident with the religious object arise, Downey indicated that the relevant provisions of the university’s Code of Rights and Responsibilities would apply.

On Feb. 9, the National Assembly voted unanimously in support of a Parti quebecois motion banning the wearing of the kirpan on its premises. The vote came after a group of Sikhs were turned away from the legislature for refusing to turn over their kirpans to security three weeks earlier. The decision attracted even more controversy when PQ secularism critic Louise Beaudoin said that while multiculturalism may be a value for Canada, it is not for Quebec.

In a press release issued last month, the president of the Concordia Sikh Students Association, Mukhbir Singh, expressed his association’s disappointment at the National Assembly’s decision, but praised Concordia for representing “what Canadian culture is truly about.”

“We don’t hear of any issues of racism at Concordia because there rarely ever exist any; we are a model of the future of this city,” read the statement.

Several legislatures and courts have indeed ruled that the kirpan should not be viewed as a weapon, and as such it is permitted on the premises of institutions such as the Canadian Parliament.

In the press release, the CSSA indicated that the National Assembly’s vote “represented a turn away from the values of tolerance and multiculturalism,” and asked if the debate is now more about the inclusion of minorities in Quebec.

Exit mobile version