>I'll snip as I go along...
>>>>
>SNIP>>
>>Having people bringing knives to school infringes on the right to safety of everybody else in that school.
>
>That's a dubious "right", frankly. Sure, safety of every person is valid, but fear of the loss of safety is hardly the same thing. School buses have accidents when kids are in them. Ban school busses? Parent have accidents driving their kids to school or elsewhere. Ban cars? I maintain that it is radio wave that are the major cause of cancer. Ban all transmissions by radio, including radar and microwave ovens?

There are probably groups somewhere which advocate banning automobiles precisely because they can be so dangerous. We probably both agree that the danger from automobiles is not sufficient to ban parents driving their kids to school. We probably both agree that the danger from guns is such that they should be banned from schools even if an established religion requires its members to always carry them.

We seem to disagree on the danger presented by knives. At the risk of putting words into your mouth.....you feel that people whose religious training prevents them from gratitously using them as weapons mimimizes the risks in such a way that they should be allowed to carry them as required by their religion. I'll grant this might well be the case. I feel, however, that the threat posed by a legitmately lethal weapon is enough to maintain the ban despite the religious implications.



>The Justices took into account that there had been not a single incident of a Sikh with his knife harming or threatening anyone.

I realize your Canadian society is different from my American one (Thank Goodness!!!! I can feel you saying). Maybe my feelings are colored by what the American reaction would be at the first such incident. "How could they not have known??????"

>If someone feels threatened just because it's there that's the fretter's problem, not the kid's.

I tend to agree with you about this sort of reaction in many cases. Just not this one.


>Fear of fear got President Bush into Iraq. Good move?

Not relevant

>>
>>
>SNIP>
>>>As both being "lethal weapons" there is no argument. But I related in another message how 3 of us jumped a guy at school who pulled a knife on us. Couldn't have done the same with a gun in his hands.
>>>
>>
>>If your example is intended to show that this isn't a big safety issue, then why prevent anybody from having a knife? Why is it only allowed as a matter of religious expression? Either it's a danger which should trump religious freedom or it's not a danger and should be generally allowed.
>
>SNIP>>
>>>Absurd for sure. No, I would have you and your religion outlawed through due process.
>>
>>
>>So we are agreed, freedom of religion isn't an absolute and doesn't exist unless you (or duely appointed representatives) agree with the concepts of the religion?
>
>No. Let me clarify. Your naked religion would be one of "convenience" designed solely to prove a point. I think it's reasonable to say that any new religion would have to conform to norms of the day, so you could only practise your new religion on private property not visible to the general population.
>Well established religions with hundreds of years of custom and millions of practitioners are a totally different thing.
>
I'm not talking about simply creating a religion so that I can walk around naked. Imagine a religion that has a central belief that it is a desecration of God's handiwork by wearing clothing when not required for health reasons. Imagine that religion having existed for hundreds of years in some equatorial region and having approximately a million adherents. Now imagine a catastrophe of some sort (an earthquake, flood, civil war etc.) and Canada offers to accept several thousand of them as a humanitarian gesture. What would your reaction be to allowing their children to attend school naked when weather permits (insert superficial joke about never having that kind of weather in Canada).

I think we can agree to disagree about the nature of the threat being posed by this decision. While disagreeing with you, I respect your opinion and the arguements you advance in its behalf.

On the other hand, I am curious about your reaction to my hypothetical religion.