Canada. Just read that Quebec government has passed a bill barring schoolteachers, police officers, judges and other public employees from wearing religious symbols in the workplace, prompting an outcry that civil liberties were under attack in the province.
Francois Legault, the right-leaning Quebec Premier, had called the bill a necessary measure to ensure the separation between religion and state in an abidingly secular province. It applies to Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans and Catholic crosses among other symbols. The bill passed 73 - 35 and was supported by the majority of Québécers.
Members of the Opposition called it a dark day for the province. Critics say that it will effectively exclude religious Muslims, Sikhs and Jews from positions of authority in education and law enforcement, and that it runs roughshod over the freedom of religion and expression at the heart of Canada’s model of multiculturalism.
Thoughts?.....
17
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
39 comments (26 - 39)
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.If anyone looses his position of authority for his religious beleif he should be spared. But show of religion sign should be maintened in their own house not in common place.
allmighty
Level 6
June 23, 2019
2
I’m inclined towards that view myself.
@Allamanda That is the trouble with religious symbolism....where do we draw the line between tolerance and compliance in coercion.
too much. let people wear their stuff.
JeffMesser
Level 8
June 23, 2019
2
It seems we are proving to be a pretty tolerant lot....more so than the Quebec government.
@Marionville I see the example of such huge religious disparity in India with relatively little unrest. I say that and we have a Buddhist/Sikh situation right now. But generally India is a good example of peaceful diversity - the Dalai Lama has mentioned as much more than a few times. If they can do that in Hindustan then why can't we in north america??
@JeffMesser Ah...if we had the answer to that, we would indeed be wise!
@Allamanda no offense but I am going to trust the dalai lama, my personal observations, and those of my friends before you. the Hindu synthesis began in like 500 BCE so I believe they have a decent history of diversity even if there have been conflicts.
@Allamanda I'm very familiar with where the dalai lives. just as I am familiar with the home of sri ramakrishna on the complete opposite border. both espoused religious diversity.
@Allamanda lack of religious diversity? are you familiar with "hinduism"? it's nothing but diverse.
@Allamanda I will just have to agree to disagree with you there. I see people choosing various marga in yoga or following one of the astika dasanas or even nastika like Buddhism or jainism and they're living by those reverent to Shiva as well as those nigama who praise Shakti. Much more diverse than we enjoy in the states.
@JeffMesser I think you are quite wrong in your opinion of Hinduism. The Hindu Nationalism of Narendra Modi, who has just won another election victory has polarised the country more than ever. The Hindus are not the peace loving people you make out...they are just as extreme as any other religion...especially when it gets mixed in with nationalistic fervour. The horrors committed by both sides at the time of Independence showed that both Muslim and Hindu alike could and would be prepared to slaughter their fellow man. I don’t believe using India as an example of religious tolerance was wise or correct.
@Marionville I don't believe the conflict that the 2 of you cite is a result of religious diversity. It is some other difference. Or just difference in general. Our brains operate on discerning differences so it's not like we'll just suddenly stop doing that and declare everyone officially the same. Even when we all have the same skin color some other difference will take its' place as our hate.
I think they are taking things a bit far.
indirect76
Level 7
June 23, 2019
2
Too far, but how do we decide what is too far or not far enough?
@Marionville The same way we decide everything else.
@Marionville
Preventing government from favoring one religion over others is not too far. Using government to suppress religious expression altogether is too far.
@skado yes.
To my mind oppressive if true. And likely to fuel rather than reduce religious belief, religion thrives under oppression.
Fernapple
Level 9
June 23, 2019
2
It’s true...the bill passed last week, they were discussing it on BBC TV this morning.
Seems extreme to me.
skado
Level 9
June 23, 2019
2
Maybe too much so, but how do we judge where to draw the line?
@Marionville
I don’t know anything at all about Canadian law, but the law I live under got it about right I think.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This Canadian law appears to me to “prohibit the free exercise thereof.” I can’t think of any moral or ethical reason why a person in a public position shouldn’t be allowed to dress as they ordinarily would, unless perhaps in the case where uniforms are required, but that should not need a separate law. It would just be a requirement imposed by the employer; the job applicant would have to weigh the consequences before accepting the job.
It doesn’t surprise me that a right-leaning politician likes this law, but I don’t see how it serves separation of religion and state, as long as all religions were equally allowed to dress as their beliefs require.
Looks to me like an excuse to keep minorities out of power. Catholics are not, to my knowledge, required by their religion to wear a cross.
@Gareth
I didn’t say anything about upper echelons. Reducing employment opportunities for minorities is without question a power play. The motive behind the legislation wouldn’t necessarily determine whether the law is good or bad, but when stated reasons don’t hold water, it’s natural to look for motives. I personally don’t see how religious dress conflicts with separation of church and state as long as one religion is not treated differently from others. Seems to me sentiments here are really more anti-religious than religious freedom oriented.
@skado I think you have to treat religions differently as long as they are different. The people affected by this legislation are no more minorities than naturists, bell-ringers or gardeners are a minority imho. If I'm a Sikh and I consider carrying my knife to be a mandatory religious requirement then I accept that I am not going to be allowed to board a commercial airliner. It's down to me. As for being anti-religion - that's fine by me. I wouldn't want anyone advertising any religion with my taxes.
@Gareth
The reasons for restricting weapons are a separate consideration from general appearance. The Sikh in your scenario would not be prevented from carrying a knife because of reasons of religious differentiation, but because of safety concerns. Head scarves and jewelry present no such hazard. Do you want people advertising red hair, or gold-framed eyeglasses with your tax dollars? I’m happy for my taxes to advertise diversity.
well ... if a personality collapses in the absence of such symbols they should seek psychological treatment and abstain from joining the public service.
I am certainly not a friend of authority, but public servants should be as neutral as humanly possible.
PontifexMarximus
Level 8
July 10, 2019
1
The majority of the Quebec people voted for this bill so there must be something to it. Maybe the question we should be addressing is, why do we express religious symbolisms? For the camaraderie or for separatism, is it a personal choice or something that was chosen for us? Without religious symbolism who would we become? Or would there still be that need to be separate, which is a personal choice or issue. To me Quebec is just saying let’s stop using symbolisms and address each other’s as humans first. Either way it’s a step towards something different, good luck Quebec.
Debbera
Level 5
June 25, 2019
1
Wearing the outward symbols of a particular religion is showing a badge of being apart from others and the opposite of inclusive...it separates people and and such can only be divisive in my opinion. In their personal space they can display and wear any badge they like, but not in the public work sector. I am with this law.
If I understand the Sikh religion, the turban isn't so much a religious symbol but a means of keeping their hair under control. Sikh males are not supposed to cut their hair or beards and so they grow quite long. When I was a child, my family was a host family for a couple Indian exchange students. They were older men who were married and had children in India. They were both Sikhs and wore the turban and did something to tie up their beards. My dad once asked one of these men how long his hair was and as I recall, he said it was 15 feet. I suppose there are other ways they could keep the tenets if their religion without the turban, but it doesn't seem to be any more practical than wearing the turban.
As for the law generally, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I see a benefit from separating religious symbols from civil government. On the other, the restriction would make civil service difficult for very devout people. I'm not certain we could get such a law passed here in the US. We would run into problems with rights guaranteed in our Constitution.
RussRAB
Level 8
June 23, 2019
1
Ridiculous. That's like asking someone to stop wearing their team shirts or hats. No bearing in anything as long as they are not proselytizing.
GreatNani
Level 8
June 23, 2019
1
Too far in your opinion then? What about a veil?
Oh , Joy ! We've gone from freedom of religion of choice to freedom from religion only . Personally , I have had no problems dealing with other beliefs , in the places I meet them , with the exception of those who stop me to pray in the middle of the parking lot . That's annoying .
Cast1es
Level 9
June 23, 2019
1
I may not be the wisest move.
At my doctor's office there are religious symbols everywhere, and that's in a secular facility. It's very intimidating.
ldheinz
Level 7
June 25, 2019
0
Just don your Superman attire and intimidate them back!
Liam:
There are a number of ways to respond to that. If you are uncomfortable and don't want to be confrontational, try to find a less religious doctor. If you don't mind or enjoy being confrontational, get up in their grill. Let them know their obvious bias bothers you. If you enjoy being confrontational and like f***ing with people, find out what religious bent they have real problems with and pretend to belong to that group. The Church of Satan is always a reliable choice and likely won't require any compromise of your principles.
so what if some nut case starts a religion in which his penis has to hang outside with a pink bow on it?
makes as much sense as those other dumb religions.
callmedubious
Level 8
June 23, 2019
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.