- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
You must log in or # to comment.
deleted by creator
Fuck religion but fuck stupid laws like this. Seriously this is just as stupid as the age verification stuff everyone he is mad about.
People have the right to do their rituals if it makes them feel good…
Not only that, but if you want to end religion, causing people to think their religion is under attack from the outside is the best way to isolate everyone in that religion and make them far more likely to stay in that religion for life.
Minister Roberge has previously stated that street prayers could be considered “acts of provocation.”
Municipalities will be able to authorize them, but only under certain criteria. The new law will also ban the wearing of religious symbols by daycare educators. The government is also extending this ban to teachers and staff at private schools.
Bloody ridiculous. This helps nobody.
I thought the whole point of secularism / separation of church and state was that the state couldn’t ban individual religious expression nor the right to assembly for religious purposes (or any other purpose)?
If the municipalities now have a say in what religious activities are authorized, and which aren’t, then that’s no longer separation of church and state.
So, yes, specifically targeting Muslims, but catching strays with Yarmulkes as well.
And I’m sure like french laicite this will be enforced unequally and will discriminate in order to target minorities.
It doesn’t need to. I don’t think anyone but Muslims is required to pray multiple times a day and need places to do so. It’s specifically meant to be an anti-Muslim law.
Just like making it illegal for anybody to sleep under a bridge. Surely that wasn’t aimed at the homeless, right?
Instead of feel-good measures like this, they should TAX mosques, churches, temples, prayer sheds, whatever. (it feels good to ME, anyway)
In USA, religions pay virtually nothing, with many more benefits than any secular charity or non-profit.
There’s a whole slew of non -profit orgs that would feel pain before religious ones were taxed at any reasonable level.
This does remove some direct funding, in the public funded orgs won’t have to set aside building space for religion. Students will also have access to different/closer/better schooling if the Catholic schools are not allowed to select students based on their religion, which is great and I don’t know how they were allowed to do that based on our Charter of freedoms
i imagine a situation where churches could keep non-profit status as long as they provided some tangible service to the community. homeless feedings and things like that. but there’s no universe in which a religious non-profit should get more privileges than a non-religious one
What problem does this solve?
The lack of oppression, there are people who got too comfortable with the illusion of power. Hence, they have to generate misery while they still can.
No, I think is more absurd. They look at the US and overcorrect. There’s a reasonable middle ground where a grey area in processing works itself out after a few generations. That is totally skipped with this volatile approach.
Religion is cancer. Every and any.
Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one. When it’s used to harm non-believers especially it’s really easy to see this.
I wouldn’t give Christians or any other religion a pass on this, so I’m not giving Atheists one either.
Good thing your opinion means jack shit, because your basis is fundamentally flawed and incorrect.
Do you think it shows weakness to be polite to those you disagree with? I think it works better to approach people with respect if I want them to consider what I’m saying. It already feels like an attack when someone says you’re wrong, and I don’t want to harden minds against what I think is right.
I’m not always good at it, and I have spoken to people harshly often. It never produced anything but hard feelings on their part. I think it can be satisfying to be mean, and I was looking for an excuse to act in a way that’s less moral without feeling bad about myself. I think even if I was right, I usually didn’t need to be mean about it.
I think that it’s likely nothing I’m doing on this website is important enough to justify me being unkind about it.
Wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion.
Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it might be a duck.
That doesn’t make atheism a religion, nor does atheism call for the persecution of anyone. Your logic is flawed and your argument is factually incorrect.
All ducks have legs, but not all birds with legs are ducks.
A muscovy duck isn’t a duck. Technically.
But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.
I can only infer from your statement that “Muscovy ducks aren’t technically ducks” which you’ve followed up by stating “anyone who says technically not a duck isn’t saying anything worthwhile”, means you’re telling me what you’re saying isn’t anything of worth.
Well, thanks, we already established that.
Why would I think this was worthwhile? You “Um Actually”-ed my post about the moral behavior of atheists who get religious about atheism.
This was only ever a long shot at best.
No, it’s not.
Not watching football isn’t a “football stance”.
Not eating pork chops isn’t a “pork chop stance”.
Not drinking jagermeister isn’t a “jagermeister stance”.
Not reading Spider-Man comics isn’t a “Spider-Man stance”.
Not being religious isn’t a “religious stance”.
Not doing something isn’t a stance on that something, that’s goofy
Vegans
d’awww. Look who thinks they know stuff
So cute
Nice word-salad.
Thanks.
If whatever you believe means you feel you have the right to be unkind to people who believe otherwise, it’s problematic. Even if you want to hold onto a different definition of whatever it is you believe, if you use it as an excuse to be unkind it’s still a problem. It’s not the label that’s the problem, it’s the behavior.
If you end up acting just like them, why should anyone believe you’re any different?
Very “it’s not a warcrime if it’s not wartime” energy.
Sounds something that a nazi would say.
It’s the same tolerance paradox. I don’t have to be kind if your “beliefs” create suffering.
I’m honored that you conceded the argument, if not gracefully.
Text comprehension isn’t your strongest side, is it? But then again, religion has been suppressing education for centuries, so it makes sense.
Though obviously I’d prefer a more civil exchange of ideas I can’t deny the ego boost of seeing someone give up. Once it’s down to name calling, it means you gave up on arguing your point.
When people have the faith in their ideas to agree to disagree, they don’t need to resort to name calling. People feel threatened and lash out. It’s understandable.
Good, now ban religion altogether, preferably by recognising it as the mental illness that it so clearly is.
You can’t ban it, don’t be silly.
Do you really want THE STATE to have the power to ban belief systems?
Religion isn’t a belief, it’s a delusion.
Sounds like an idea that will be presented in Reason’s Great Moments in Unintended Consequences in few years.
Something something France light.
Also related but isn’t Canada super immigrant dense anyway? If you ignored the architecture, you could genuinely confuse some areas for South Asia lol.
2021 census has us at 23% immigrants, so ya its a lot.
I don’t believe in any religion, don’t like religion, but I also realize that it’s not the governments place to tell people what they can and can’t believe.
Besides that, given the specifics of this law it’s rather easy to see it’s not even about religion as a whole. It’s just more Islamophobia.
it’s not the governments place to tell people what they can and can’t believe
Right, which is why they are requiring schools that receive public funds to stop discriminating against students
It’s just more Islamophobia.
Also yes and we’ll work on that, but it prompted them into a sensible change.
Wasn’t the Supreme Court supposed to give its verdict on this? So either the court said nothing or the QC government just passed it anyway.
Can’t wait for the endless “end times near! look at this recent event” that are going made concerning this recent ruling. /s
Canadians are bad, but French Canadians are just the absolute worst. Distilled colonialism shouldn’t exist.
Based
