I'm not trying to hate on men or stereotype them. I'm more curious as to why freedom of religion is more important than sexism.

It's not really. There's a federal law that says that men and women are equal. But there's also a lot of religious activists that can be a pain in the ass. The professor did the right thing, he said "no". The human rights and the dean's office were more concerned about the above mentioned activists turning it into a media scandal, where the university would be accused of oppressing their students' rights. The situation is screwed up, so the prof turned it into a media scandal anyway.

At the end the equality act is the law no matter what that guy was taught home.

But instead views of extremism persists. You don't think that in moderation even a slight change in thought could start a new generation for the future?

Hell yeah it will. But we chose to be this way and allow other cultures to bring whatever world views they see fit. No matter how other societies are "underdeveloped" in western sense of the word. Their population is increasing, while western population is only sustained by the immigration, in 100 years, our entire views and values could change simply because there are no people with western mindset will be left at the ruling level. I used to talk about it in another thread here, but they called me a racist fuck. See how it works? We don't want to see the change.

But hey, maybe it's for the best, the survival of the fittest.

@R136
The reason why it is news worthy because it has applications that could be cited in future law. It is a bandwagon in terms of news but simply because it is never been seen before. It could be a random pathetic excuse but it does bring up questions as to the hierachy of rulings. The CBC article is written better. Based on the article, it does seem to me like a petty excuse or sexist at most since the student was ok with the teacher's ruling

There isn't any reason not to allow the request.
It doesn't demean anyone, doesn't put anyone into a situation where they are uncomfortable, and is easy to do because of precedent from online students.

Also, with regard to the idea that this isn't something in any religion, I guess you've never heard of Yichud in Judaism. Link

Hey,

It seems like majority of people think he is a muslim. Just so you know, almost all of the sects in Islam permits working with females in a working/professional environment. What is forbidden in Islam is actually 'mingling' with females (for no reason, or just for fun).

So then he himself is either wrong, or maybe he's too weak to control his sexual desires at all when he's exposed to females (which is abnormal).

In any case, the person himself is wrong, not his relegion (any relegion)

Cheers!

I'll gladly take this guy's place for that meeting. Girls must be really hot if he thinks he can't control himself when he meets them

I don't think there is an issue... we live in Canada everyone has the right to their own opinion. If he didn't want to be with girls cause he didn't feel comfortable big deal the professor should have just accepted the wish like the HUMAN RIGHTS department did. It doesn't have to be all about religion maybe he was just super shy, and used religion has an excuse, maybe he has social anxiety people don't wanna share these things...

Far as I know because of being a Religious Studies student at Mcmaster... Islam has no issue with men and women interacting in professional settings no Abrahamic religions do. All three abrahamic religions directly or indirectly preach not to be too comfortable with the opposite sex if not family or relatives or wife or whatever... Not everyone follows this... heck barely anyone follows this lol... but to judge this guy for following what he feels is right is wrong! He isn't harming anyone, he isn't saying he hates women, he has a mother and probably other females in his life who he loves and cares about... you don't know this guy...

Are you going to hate on Mormons too because they are extremely conservative, he is probably from some conservative sect in Islam.. or maybe its not even religion maybe its his culture thats like that or his family traditions... people just use religion to explain things cause its easier for others to understand.

I don't even know if he is Muslims i just read the above threads indicating this. I don't think it matter what religion he is... he has a right to express and live his life the way anyway he wants to... as long as it doesn't hurt or harm anyone else's rights as its in our constitution.

P.S everyone is either an immigrant or descendants of one unless you're an aboriginal. I don't care if your family came to Canada 200 years a go or what... you're all descendants of immigrants. So don't make those derogatory remarks cause it is hurtful... Especially this being Mac insiders there are MANY students who are immigrants or children's of one.

P.s.s Columbus was not a good man, do research he was a rapist and a lot of other terrible things

Originally Posted by lightsms

There isn't any reason not to allow the request.
It doesn't demean anyone, doesn't put anyone into a situation where they are uncomfortable, and is easy to do because of precedent from online students.

Also, with regard to the idea that this isn't something in any religion, I guess you've never heard of Yichud in Judaism. Link

I just read your link and also Wikipedia'd Yichud. Again the context of Yichud appears to be interpreted.

Wikipedia addresses Yichud from the context of a business relationship. From my understanding based on what I read (I am by no means a religion expert) the article is referring to:

1) adultery
2) promiscuity

Again this is a school project. Was the assignment to sleep with your group member? Most likely not.

And if shy/nervousness etc were the reason why had he felt compelled to proceed with his request on grounds of "religion" vs. Personal feelings of discomfort?

The purpose of this thread was to have a discussion from an intellectual stand point. Not to undermine anyone's religious beliefs. This case has legal precedent which is why it is so interesting. Perhaps citing a Star article wasn't the best choice but I've read other news reports on the same topic that have been written fairly similarly. That doesn't mean that the media not citing the religion and then drawing comparisons to Afghanistan are correct. But again this is why I thought in an academic setting this could be discussed impartially.

I wonder if this situation would have different positions if it was a girl requesting not to work with guys.

Yichud refers to any situation that a man and one or more women would be in seclusion.
I have an uncle who won't be in the same room as my mother with out any one else there if the door is closed. People can be really stringent, and it is not an uncommon practice.

I don't think it matter what religion he is... he has a right to express and live his life the way anyway he wants to... as long as it doesn't hurt or harm anyone else's rights as its in our constitution.

If everyone had the right to do whatever they think is right, or whatever they are obligated to due to their believes, religious or otherwise, you would have a complete chaos on your hands.

Federal laws and constitution exist for a reason you know, they exist so we don't fucking kill each other.

Hell, in this country alone there are over 33 million people, imagine if everyone starts avoiding each other or expressing their dislike for each other. What if 7 billion of us start doing the same?

Originally Posted by MrPlinkett

If everyone had the right to do whatever they think is right, or whatever they are obligated to due to their believes, religious or otherwise, you would have a complete chaos on your hands.

Federal laws and constitution exist for a reason you know, they exist so we don't fucking kill each other.

Hell, in this country alone there are over 33 million people, imagine if everyone starts avoiding each other or expressing their dislike for each other. What if 7 billion of us start doing the same?

You really think that if there were no laws everyone would start killing each other? Primates have existed on this planet for 60 million years and have somehow managed to survive, and thrive, without centralized legislature.

If there were no laws all that would happen is our politicians and bureaucrats becoming justly unemployed. Society would still maintain order via various conflict resolution firms and community rules. Throughout history it was always the more liberal (in the classical sense) societies that triumphed, because they didn't have the parasitic elites subjugating the population in various ways, from slavery and serfdom to modern day taxation and regulation. One need only look at the late roman empire, qing dynasty and the soviet union to realize that tyranny destroys nations, no matter how naturally wealthy they are.

Originally Posted by WillyH

You really think that if there were no laws everyone would start killing each other? Primates have existed on this planet for 60 million years and have somehow managed to survive, and thrive, without centralized legislature.

If there were no laws all that would happen is our politicians and bureaucrats becoming justly unemployed. Society would still maintain order via various conflict resolution firms and community rules. Throughout history it was always the more liberal (in the classical sense) societies that triumphed, because they didn't have the parasitic elites subjugating the population in various ways, from slavery and serfdom to modern day taxation and regulation. One need only look at the late roman empire, qing dynasty and the soviet union to realize that tyranny destroys nations, no matter how naturally wealthy they are.

Well when you look at nature, or regarding your point the great apes, primates do kill each other. I mean for some species when a new member joins the group they can be raped, savagely beaten or have to fight for a position in the group.

And even in history, Germany after World War I was so poor people were burning money instead of wood since it was worth so little. They ended up becoming a major power in the world even though what they did was inhumane. And for modern times, China is not exactly what one would call a Liberal country and yet it is one of the world's most powerful countries and also wealthy.

So yes while it may make people feel bad, humans are not inherently good nor evil, it is in our instincts to survive, not to be good people. It is the choices people make that define them as good or evil and not what species they are or where in the world they are from. Not to mention the fact that even when we do have laws, murder is still committed. Just look at the war in the middle-east where the US military was (and still might be) using a strategy called double-tapping when fighting with "terrorists". The definition of terrorists being anyone male and 18 or older of course. So yes even with laws, people are murdered and people commit evil, but laws do minimize the problem substantially.

Primates have existed on this planet for 60 million years and have somehow managed to survive, and thrive, without centralized legislature.

Genius! Lets all go back to living on trees and throwing feces at each other! It will be Glorious!

... but they also tend to kill each other in brutal fights for the right to mate. We should probably start with that.

If there were no laws all that would happen is our politicians and bureaucrats becoming justly unemployed. Society would still maintain order via various conflict resolution firms and community rules.

Okay, and how will they manage that? Will they have weapons where as others wont? And what will make them stop from using those weapons to oppress? Or, maybe you think we should give a weapon to every single citizen? Maybe because it works so well in US. It's not like the annual death toll there due to gunfire is higher than annual death toll of US soldiers in Vietnam war. Oh wait, it is.

Oh yeah, community rules. You mean like the rules we have right now.... also known as laws.... that are being broken anyway. So lets get rid of centralized government, maybe that will help to reduce the crime levels. It works so well in Somalia.

Throughout history it was always the more liberal (in the classical sense) societies that triumphed.

You know what they do to monkeys opposing liberal monkey leaders? They kill them.

China is prospering. Liberal USA is not.

Greek states supported gender inequality, slavery and required conquered states to submit to them. Ancient Persians did not have gender inequality (they had female generals), their religion was against slavery and the conquered states were allowed to keep their constitution, king and territory and were only required to pay taxes. The king was however required to call the Persian king his ruler, but and support him in whatever he was doing (thus the Persian king's title, "the King of Kings"). Yet ancient Persia vanished and Greek culture became the basis for the western (the oh so cultured and liberal) world today.

Guess being oppressive works pretty well.

taxation and regulation.

Please cut your OHIP card into pieces and never even think of using it again.

One need only look at the late roman empire, qing dynasty and the soviet union to realize that tyranny destroys nations, no matter how naturally wealthy they are.

Roman empire? Oh you mean the empire started as a city state modeled after aforementioned Greek states, and eventually moved to Constantinople when economy started to shift East close to Muslim world?. And that was later conquered by the oh so liberal Ottoman Empire?

The Soviet Union? Oh you mean when the liberal notion separated it into several counties, destroyed their economies completely, and created so many territorial and ethnic tensions that ultimately resolved into over a decade of local wars? Liberalism really fucking backfired for those guys, huh?

Tyranny destroys nations

That's not what destroys nations. Greed of people destroys nations. People don't realize how much they have, and always ultimately try to get more.

... but they also tend to kill each other in brutal fights for the right to mate. We should probably start with that.

We already did do that, what is every war in existence? But obviously it's the citizens who want to start the wars, not the parasitic government that wants to acquire resources, of course.

Okay, and how will they manage that? Will they have weapons where as others wont? And what will make them stop from using those weapons to oppress? Or, maybe you think we should give a weapon to every single citizen? Maybe because it works so well in US. It's not like the annual death toll there due to gunfire is higher than annual death toll of US soldiers in Vietnam war. Oh wait, it is.

Oh yeah, community rules. You mean like the rules we have right now.... also known as laws.... that are being broken anyway. So lets get rid of centralized government, maybe that will help to reduce the crime levels. It works so well in Somalia.

We all know how great gun control is, just look at detroit and chicago! Michigan and Illinois are some of the bluest states out there, with the strictest firearms licensing, but somehow that doesn't deter all that crime... Community regulation is anarchy in its purest, there is no ruler who dictates the rules to you, they are created by the members of the community.

And obviously somalia is a libertarian/ancap nation, it's not a failed state and a former communist dictatorship... Oh wait! Now compare that to HK, Andorra and Monaco. And before the slow encroachment of economic freedom, the united states used to be the wealthiest nation in the world bar none.

China is prospering. Liberal USA is not.

Are you serious? The only reason china is prospering right now is because they are opening up their economy. During their oh so wise central planning they caused the death of 60 million people and a regression of the country to africa-level prosperity.

And are you really implying that Persia was a bastion of freedom? The same empire that burned cities to the ground and had to maintain it's existence by constantly crushing internal revolts?
“Afterwards I cut off  both his nose and ea rs, and put out one e ye; he was kept bound  at my palace entranc e; all the people saw  him.  Afterwards I i mpaled him.” Persian emperors were clearly the most humane and freedom loving men, I guess invading greece was simply a move to impose these views on those tyrannical greeks, who were clearly so oppressive that they couldn't even conquer one another. Some were even so tyrannical as to give the people a chance to chose who rules them, clearly Hitler modeled his germany after greek principles.

Greek scholars and He brew prophets might a dmire the generosity  of Cyrus and 
everyone feared Persi an power, yet the Per sians personified wha t the Greeks meant by  the 
word barbarian.  The  “Great King” of Persi a was an autocrat who  extracted tribute, 
exploited the labor o f his subjects for bu ilding projects, and  forced subject people s to 
serve in his army.  T he king claimed the r ight of life and deat h over his subjects,  who knelt 
or even prostrated th emselves in his prese nce.  In his play The Persians, the Gre ek 
playwright Aeschylus  suggested the essenti al difference between  the Greeks and the 
Persians.  The Persia n queen asks about th e Athenians:  “Who commands them?  
Who is  shepherd of their hos t?”  The Chorus responds:  “They are slave to no ne, nor are they  subject.”

Roman empire? Oh you mean the empire started as a city state modeled after aforementioned Greek states, and eventually moved to Constantinople when economy started to shift East close to Muslim world?. And that was later conquered by the oh so liberal Ottoman Empire?

Yes, it was modeled after greece, as greece was simply by far the most advanced culture in the area. Greek culture spread by trade, people learned greek as far as spain to merely have the ability to trade with them. Greek contribution to art, philosophy and mathematics is immeasurable, all from a peninsula slightly larger than ireland.
Both rome and the ottomans stagnated and collapsed thanks to the government becoming too bloated to even safeguard it's own territory.

The Soviet Union? Oh you mean when the liberal notion separated it into several counties, destroyed their economies completely, and created so many territorial and ethnic tensions that ultimately resolved into over a decade of local wars? Liberalism really fucking backfired for those guys, huh?

What are you talking about? Modern day russia is far more prosperous than the soviet union. The soviet union changed russia from being the largest european grain exporter to not being able to feed its own people. Compare the economic growth of the US and the nearly nonexstiant growth of the soviet union.

That's not what destroys nations. Greed of people destroys nations. People don't realize how much they have, and always ultimately try to get more.

Greed? What's wrong with greed? Do you work for free? Greed is what has made humanity so wealthy that it actually has problems with overnourishment. Human greed is the reason for every single business and good produced. If there was no greed we would still all be subsistence farmers if not simply hunter gatherers.

We already did do that, what is every war in existence? But obviously it's the citizens who want to start the wars, not the parasitic government that wants to acquire resources, of course.

Do you actually compare wars for land, food and other resources, to fights for the right to mount a female? You need to get your priorities straight.

We all know how great gun control is, just look at detroit and chicago! Michigan and Illinois are some of the bluest states out there, with the strictest firearms licensing, but somehow that doesn't deter all that crime... Community regulation is anarchy in its purest, there is no ruler who dictates the rules to you, they are created by the members of the community.

A strict gun control in USA, is like nothing compared to other countries. Why? I suggest you read some history books on what guns were in US history, and why they are such a problem now.

And obviously somalia is a libertarian/ancap nation, it's not a failed state and a former communist dictatorship... Oh wait! Now compare that to HK, Andorra and Monaco. And before the slow encroachment of economic freedom, the united states used to be the wealthiest nation in the world bar none.

Okay.... I think that's enough MacInsiders for today.