Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Abies said:

Bill 21 is not about misogyny in religion  but about getting rid of minority religious groups from government positions and jobs. That includes Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and so on.

No.  It's about people in positions of authority having an appearance of neutrality so that everyone feels safe in society. 

Does it actually make people safer?  I'm not sure, but it could, because it does send a strong message that religious nuttery should be kept separate from secular society.  It sends the message that religious rights do not trump human rights, women's rights or society's rights.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is a lie.

You can actually often tell a hell of a lot about someone by what they're wearing. At 83, or whatever you are, you should know this already.

You are engaging in a similar defective argument people make defending Trump. You try deflect from the  issue of Muslim extremism by raising criticism of  Western states' foreign policies and/or human

27 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No.  It's about people in positions of authority having an appearance of neutrality so that everyone feels safe in society. 

Does it actually make people safer?  I'm not sure, but it could, because it does send a strong message that religious nuttery should be kept separate from secular society.  It sends the message that religious rights do not trump human rights, women's rights or society's rights.  

 

No to mention the hyprocricy involved.  :mellow:

Dwivedi_Bill21_735.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No.  It's about people in positions of authority having an appearance of neutrality so that everyone feels safe in society. 

Does it actually make people safer?  I'm not sure, but it could, because it does send a strong message that religious nuttery should be kept separate from secular society.  It sends the message that religious rights do not trump human rights, women's rights or society's rights.  

 

Religious rights are part of human rights.  How does a man with a turban make someone feel unsafe, or an orthodox jew wearing his kippah, or a Muslim woman wearing her hijab? This bill has nothing to do with feeling safe or neutral it is about preventing people from following their faith.

Edited by Abies
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Goddess said:

Did you know the symbol on Quebec's flag, the Fleur de Lis is a religious symbol?  Think they are going to give that up anytime soon?  Or how about the arms of Canada?  

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis

 

Hypocrisy at work in the 21st century. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Abies said:

Religious rights are part of human rights.  How does a man with a turban make someone feel unsafe? This bill has nothing to do with feeling safe or neutral it is about preventing people from following their faith.

That may be your perception. Canada is a secular country, you are free to follow any faith.  Lots of jobs require a uniform or have a dress code, there's nothing sinister about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Did you know the symbol on Quebec's flag, the Fleur de Lis is a religious symbol?  Think they are going to give that up anytime soon?  Or how about the arms of Canada?  

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis

 

Hypocrisy at work in the 21st century. 

It always amazes me how apologists for religion will rant about something like this, while utterly ignoring and refusing to speak about the very real, very damaging, very hypocritical  beliefs and symbols of certain religions.

The fleur-de-lis offends you, but women being forced to wear blankets over their head everywhere they go, walking around like  Handmaids  is A-OK and deserves a place in our society.  Weird.

Edited by Goddess
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It always amazes me how apologists for religion will rant about something like this, while utterly ignoring and refusing to speak about the very real, very damaging, very hypocritical  beliefs and symbols of certain religions.

The fleur-de-lis offends you, but women being forced to wear blankets over their head everywhere they go, walking around like  Handmaids  is A-OK and deserves a place in our society.  Weird.

If they are forced then yes, I do not agree with that.  If they wish to wear it then I dont see why they should not be allowed to.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Goddess said:

That may be your perception. Canada is a secular country, you are free to follow any faith.  Lots of jobs require a uniform or have a dress code, there's nothing sinister about it.

And uniform and dress codes allow turbans, hijabs and kippahs because we allow people to observe their faiths.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Did you know the symbol on Quebec's flag, the Fleur de Lis is a religious symbol?  Think they are going to give that up anytime soon?  Or how about the arms of Canada?  

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis

 

Hypocrisy at work in the 21st century. 

We're not required to shun our entire past history, however much liberals hate it. The ban against these religious costumes is clearly designed to prevent immigrants from sticking to their old world, religious fanatic ways, to put the point across to them that this is a secular country and that if they want to fit in they have to adopt secular ways in public.

All the liberals have this absolute confidence that all newcomers to Canada will integrate and abandon their old-world ways, if not immediately then by the second generation. But that doesn't work so well when you throw religion into the mix. Just ask the Hasidics in Montreal. They haven't changed one damn bit. But okay, there aren't that many of them, so no big deal. But there are a LOT of Muslims and Sikhs, and their numbers are growing exponentially. They, particularly the Muslims need to be pressured to abandon their religious cultures or we're going to have major violence from them in the future. The Sikhs, meanwhile, are as clannish as they were when they first arrived. We are growing foreign communities built on religious extremism in our midst.

And if that means some people are irked too damn bad.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Abies said:

And uniform and dress codes allow turbans, hijabs and kippahs

Not in Quebec. Not in France.  Not in Belgium. Not in Denmark.  Not in Austria.

Quote

because we allow people to observe their faiths.

Yes.  But there are other rights that come before religious rights.

Edited by Goddess
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Argus said:

And if that means some people are irked too damn bad.

Even their "irks" are couched in dishonesty:

16 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

If they are forced then yes, I do not agree with that

"If"

..........Like women all over the world aren't being forced, killed, beaten, imprisoned, assaulted on the daily over this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

 

Also, i might add, it's quite ironic that quebecers have cried since 1774 about how their culture is so important and yet they are seeking to destroy others rights to theirs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act

Wow.   If that's all it takes to "destroy" a religion is ban their headgear when they work in positions of authority, why haven't we done this sooner?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Not in Quebec. Not in France.  Not in Belgium. Not in Denmark.  Not in Austria.

Yes.  But there are other rights that come before religious rights.

Quebec isn’t a nation it is a province which used a law to quash people’s rights. We live in Canada what Belgium, Denmark and France do is irrelevant. 

What rights come first is also irrelevant they are all guaranteed under the charter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Abies said:

Quebec isn’t a nation it is a province which used a law to quash people’s rights. We live in Canada what Belgium, Denmark and France do is irrelevant. 

What rights come first is also irrelevant they are all guaranteed under the charter.

No they're not.  Honor killing and FGM and lots of other ridiculous religious nonsense in the name of religion is not guaranteed in the charter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No they're not.  Honor killing and FGM and lots of other ridiculous religious nonsense in the name of religion is not guaranteed in the charter.

I never said those practices were guaranteed under the charter and I also fail to see how those things are relevant to the conversation. It would be bad faith to assume that defending ones right to practice their religion means allowing harm to others or breaking the law. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Abies said:

I never said those practices were guaranteed under the charter and I also fail to see how those things are relevant to the conversation. It would be bad faith to assume that defending ones right to practice their religion means allowing harm to others or breaking the law. 

Well, in secular countries religious abuse is being recognized more and more as being harmful to humans.

I think it's difficult to argue that yarmulkes or turbans are harmful.  Hijabs and burkas are harmful to women, children, men and society.  Physically and psychologically, they are harmful.

Edited by Goddess
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Well, in secular countries religious abuse is being recognized more and more as being harmful to humans.

I think it's difficult to argument that yarmulkes or turbans are harmful.  Hijabs and burkas are harmful to women, children, men and society.  Physically and psychologically, they are harmful.

Abuse can come in many forms. Singling out religion is ignoring other abuses such as Quebec’s abuse of it’s own citizens.

Hijabs and burqas are harmful when forced onto women but that doesn’t mean every woman you meet wearing one is being forced to do so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...