Any religious representation [on govermental buildings] is offensive to secularism. A cross is just two over lapping lines but it would also be offensive in this context. Although the word offensive is a bit much, I’ll give you that, I can understand why they want it gone.
It is a shame that secularism seems to disproportionately target Muslim women but it’s either a religious symbol or it isn’t.
Any religious representation is offensive to secularism.
No, I don’t agree. Making laws with religious justification is offensive to secularism. A drawing that depicts a person wearing a piece of clothing traditionally associated with a religion is not offensive to secularism.
I think it goes deeper then that. Secularism means complete disconnection of church and state. Having religious symbols on state buildings goes against that. Religious symbols are a form of propaganda in the end.
I would be okay with making an exception for the head scarf. Tbh I don’t really consider it much of a symbol but I understand their reaction to it. I wish we had similar laws where I am, instead my kids get to learn about creationism (I’m just guessing it’s still taught, I don’t actually have kids).
Oh?
Please, Montreal City Hall, share with the class what’s offensive about that image.
Any religious representation [on govermental buildings] is offensive to secularism. A cross is just two over lapping lines but it would also be offensive in this context. Although the word offensive is a bit much, I’ll give you that, I can understand why they want it gone.
It is a shame that secularism seems to disproportionately target Muslim women but it’s either a religious symbol or it isn’t.
Edit: Clarified first sentence.
This monument overlooks Montreal.
And it should be taken down as well. Unfortunately, secularism is applied unevenly.
“Unevenly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Yeah, I should have said that politicians use secularism laws to be racist fucking pieces of shit.
With that said, I still believe that our different level of public services should be secular, and we should start with Christianity symbols first.
No, I don’t agree. Making laws with religious justification is offensive to secularism. A drawing that depicts a person wearing a piece of clothing traditionally associated with a religion is not offensive to secularism.
I think it goes deeper then that. Secularism means complete disconnection of church and state. Having religious symbols on state buildings goes against that. Religious symbols are a form of propaganda in the end.
I would be okay with making an exception for the head scarf. Tbh I don’t really consider it much of a symbol but I understand their reaction to it. I wish we had similar laws where I am, instead my kids get to learn about creationism (I’m just guessing it’s still taught, I don’t actually have kids).