Saguenay mayor rejects edict banning crucifix, prayer

[Shwa]

Then take it back out. Objection is objection, and I see no signifigance to the nuance. Citizens object. Not just one citizen, but citizens.

So you see no difference between a single complaint and many?

[MapleLeafAlliance]

Faith is personal...worship whatever you like, however you like...but do it on your own time. Government is an administrative body, a workplace - not a venue for religion, superstition or other indulgences.

When you work on the public dime - do the work - save your praises of Allah, Jesus, Buddha, Santa, Yoda, whoever - for your private time...y'know...when taxpayers aren't paying you to do things on their behalf.

[Molly]

So you see no difference between a single complaint and many?

That would seem to be your problem.

Interpreting an issue that has been a bedrock question in all related jusrisdictions for... honestly, centuries.. has inspired provincial law, codes of rights, lines in constitions and wild-eyed rants listing points of xenophobic pride, not to mention the creation of administrative bodies to enforce neutrality.. an issue which even in recent days in in this very restricted environment has elevated to group efforts, lawsuits, judgements and appeals... to threats, harrassment and assaults etc. etc. etc. as 'a single complaint' is obtuse beyond description.

[Shwa]

That would seem to be your problem.

Interpreting an issue that has been a bedrock question in all related jusrisdictions for... honestly, centuries.. has inspired provincial law, codes of rights, lines in constitions and wild-eyed rants listing points of xenophobic pride, not to mention the creation of administrative bodies to enforce neutrality.. an issue which even in recent days in in this very restricted environment has elevated to group efforts, lawsuits, judgements and appeals... to threats, harrassment and assaults etc. etc. etc. as 'a single complaint' is obtuse beyond description.

Ahhh, I see what you are getting at, good point. But... but...

Do you not think that it would be a better method to introduce change as a choice, then educate, but at the same time allowing the folks to choose for themselves? I mean, despite all the xenophobic reactions - where there are some - the crucifix remains in the Assembly. And it was only put there in 1936.

[fellowtraveller]

Is that a trick question? (It's not an easy one to give a simple answer to.)

No, I don't... but I do recognize it as having a far better sense of the cynical secular and a higher tolerance for a great many activities and viewpoints than much of the rest of tight-sphinctered North America. One of the traits shared with and no doubt carried from the motherland is limitless cultural conceit.

Does that adequately place my neck in the noose for you?

No. it was not a trick question and of course the answer is very simple: no, Quebec is not tolerant of other cultures. Do you see this example in Saguenay as being a good example of cynical secularism?

It makes me laugh actuallu, here we are having a sincere discussion on this Godbothering mayor when if this had happened in AB or SK he'd have been dismissed as a redneck and forgotten.

[Molly]

No kidding.

Unfortunately, though, we've all run into similar sorts who seem to think that any old horse pucks their Mama taught them must necessarily be majority opinion. I can think of a few religion-pushers in Saskatchewan who managed to get away with stuff they shouldn't have, because folks chose to roll their eyes and ignore the doofus, instead of inviting him to PFO. They certainly exist all over, if not in great numbers.

A township not far from here was going through the same process a dozen years ago when we arrived in this neck of the woods. I thought it was hilarious; that the doofus there must be the last fossil left in Canada to have missed the social studies class where they talked about the separation of church and state, and/or freedom of religion.

However.. "Do you see this example in Saguenay as being a good example of cynical secularism?" Of course not. The guy thinks he's leading the majority, when he is, in fact, the obscure (embarrassing) exception. The honest truth is that he'll be dismissed as a redneck too, and be soon forgotten.

[Molly]

Ahhh, I see what you are getting at, good point. But... but...

Do you not think that it would be a better method to introduce change as a choice, then educate, but at the same time allowing the folks to choose for themselves? I mean, despite all the xenophobic reactions - where there are some - the crucifix remains in the Assembly. And it was only put there in 1936.

Took long enough... but it doesn't really look to me as though you get it even yet.

The change- I assume you mean the removal of prayer or other religious practice from the government agenda- happened years ago at the behest and with the approval of the populace. It was not some unnamed 'special interest group' that created the list of defended rights or created human rights commissions. It was the people themselves.

Grace and education periods have been going on ever since, but now have expired.

This mayor is trying to override both the group decision of the people of his province, and the individual decisions of the folks attending local government assembly. So yeah! Allowing folks to choose for themselves would be better!

[Molly]

Back there, Shwa, you belittled the issue, saying 'No harm, no foul."...

That's double edged. If government sanctioned prayer is so unimportant that no one should be upset by it or demand its end, then it's so unimportant that it shouldn't bend anyones beak to eliminate it either.

If you, personally, think it's of so little importance that 'no harm, no foul' could apply, why do you find it of any interest? Why do you care?

Edited February 23, 2011 by Molly

[Oleg Bach]

What right does one creep have to come into a place of government and out of sheer spite - arrogance and hate..insist that French religous tradition must be eliminated - I am tired of atheists playing god..they should keep their hate to themselves..what is it to this person that people in authority pray? How does it effect the complainer in a negative way? - it's just spite - and the Human Rights Tribunal is nothing but a spite facilitator.

[Shwa]

Back there, Shwa, you belittled the issue, saying 'No harm, no foul."...

That's double edged. If government sanctioned prayer is so unimportant that no one should be upset by it or demand its end, then it's so unimportant that it shouldn't bend anyones beak to eliminate it either.

If you, personally, think it's of so little importance that 'no harm, no foul' could apply, why do you find it of any interest? Why do you care?

Do you believe in self-government and democracy? At which level - national, provincial or municipal - does the self governance of that particular level's instutions cease to be it's own responsibility?

For example, do you think the Feds are going to tell the provinces what they can and cannot display on their walls of their respective legislatures?

So what is the harm and foul of letting a municipality decide the same for their own institutions?

Do you think that representatives of each level of government - by their mere participation in that level of government - are somehow exempt from civil disobedience or protest?

I seriously don't see any problem with a crucifix on the wall of a Saguenay City Council Chambers, in the same way that the Quebec Assembly has decided this for themselves. Nor do I see any problem with a small prayer recited before Council meetings. Do the people of Saguenay? Perhaps it is something left for the citizens to decide next time they have election don't you think?

[fellowtraveller]

I seriously don't see any problem with a crucifix on the wall of a Saguenay City Council Chambers, in the same way that the Quebec Assembly has decided this for themselves.

You need more spirit in your defense of the indefensible.

The Duplessis cross hanging in the National Assembly is an example of the blithe hypocrisy defended by Quebec nationailists. A blatantly religous symbol is permitted to hang in the centre of government, while at the same time kirpans are declared weapons and the niqab is assumed to be a symbol of degradation.

Hypocrites.

[Shwa]

You need more spirit in your defense of the indefensible.

The Duplessis cross hanging in the National Assembly is an example of the blithe hypocrisy defended by Quebec nationailists. A blatantly religous symbol is permitted to hang in the centre of government, while at the same time kirpans are declared weapons and the niqab is assumed to be a symbol of degradation. Hypocrites.

How is it hypocrisy when they can claim a right to display their cultural symbols? The problem is you see those symbols as religious, I see them no different than a kirpan or niqab. So, from my point of view, all you are saying here is that if the majority declared the kirpan to not be a weapon and that niqabs were a-ok, then hanging a crucifix and reciting a prayer is perfectly OK too?

The problem being, which you know since you read the article in the OP, is that the "Quebec nationalists" or a wing called the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, are the ones taking the Saguenay mayor to task in the first place. If kirpan or niqab wearers want to protest through the use of civil disobedience, like the Saquenay mayor, I certainly have no problem with that either. All the power to them wouldn't you agree?

[fellowtraveller]

How is it hypocrisy when they can claim a right to display their cultural symbols? The problem is you see those symbols as religious, I see them no different than a kirpan or niqab. So, from my point of view, all you are saying here is that if the majority declared the kirpan to not be a weapon and that niqabs were a-ok, then hanging a crucifix and reciting a prayer is perfectly OK too?

The problem being, which you know since you read the article in the OP, is that the "Quebec nationalists" or a wing called the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, are the ones taking the Saguenay mayor to task in the first place. If kirpan or niqab wearers want to protest through the use of civil disobedience, like the Saquenay mayor, I certainly have no problem with that either. All the power to them wouldn't you agree?

A cross is not a culural symbol, it is the prime religious symbol of Christianity. You may have heard the story, this guy called Jesus was nailed to a .... oh, you have heard of it. Kirpans are most definitely religious symbols for Sikhs. The hypocrisy is Quebec being fiercely secular in banning one religious symbol while having another religious symbol hang in the legislature, sorry the National Assembly.

No. you can't have it both ways.

The niqab is not a religious symbol, it is not mentioned in the holy Koran and is thus a cultural expression. Many Muslim women do not cover their heads or faces because they do not have to.

[jbg]

Interesting story from the Globe. I caught attention of this listening to talk radio this afternoon on 1010 in TO.

Saguenay mayor rejects edict banning crucifix, prayer

I am really having a hard time understanding how someone's "freedom of conscience" is impeded by a small nod to some well-known cultural symbols and a prayer. The fact that this city council was imposed upon by a provincial body while the town itself deems the symbols and prayer appropriate raises some interesting questions about freedom of expression. It ought to work both ways...

I'm Jewish and I totally agree. I refuse to be "offended" by the majority of people expressing their religion, as long as their not getting in my way of practicing mine. Public funds....well maybe a problem, but nothing I'm going to get in an uproar about.

[Molly]

Do you believe in self-government and democracy? At which level - national, provincial or municipal - does the self governance of that particular level's instutions cease to be it's own responsibility?

You missed a level: individual. What we have here is: both the national and provincial level have both decided that this decision is personal and individual, but a mayor- NOT A MUNICIPALITY- being a majority of one in a pool of one, has decided that his own religious devotion trumps that of anyone else.

No matter how you cut it, personal religious practice is not a matter that falls under municipal jurisdiction, even if it was the municipality, not just the mayor, pushing it.

Turnabout is fair play: at what point would you consider a religious requirement for participation to be appropriate? If citizens must put up with being prayed at in order to protest the latest zoning bylaw, could they also be required to kiss a cross in order to recieve a municipal ballot?

[Shwa]

You missed a level: individual. What we have here is: both the national and provincial level have both decided that this decision is personal and individual, but a mayor- NOT A MUNICIPALITY- being a majority of one in a pool of one, has decided that his own religious devotion trumps that of anyone else.

No matter how you cut it, personal religious practice is not a matter that falls under municipal jurisdiction, even if it was the municipality, not just the mayor, pushing it.

Turnabout is fair play: at what point would you consider a religious requirement for participation to be appropriate? If citizens must put up with being prayed at in order to protest the latest zoning bylaw, could they also be required to kiss a cross in order to recieve a municipal ballot?

I didn't miss a level at all, but for the purposes of the expression of democracy, the individual is not an island unto themselves. So, in favour of the individual you have ignored - or dimished the importance of - the collective. Not to mention completely ignored my questions. So there is no turnabout there. How about elsewhere?

Well, for one, you will note that in the OP that it is the city council that recites a prayer, in whose room the symbols are displayed; it was the city that has to pay for the so-called damages of the complainant. This would indicate to me - for the purposes of democracy - that it sure is the municipality - their representatives - is pushing back. The mayor - as mayors usually are - is the chair and main spokesperson for any city council. So let's not get confused about that.

For two, your 'fair play' turnabout is a straw man, and an inadedquate one at that. I would hope that if the citizens of the municipality were that put out that they too would initiate civil disobedience, protest, sanction, etc. But there doesn't seem to be any of that at all. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the mayor and his council has a fairly firm backing in the citizenry of Saguenay and the issue falls back to how responsible is a municipality - the citizens and it's elected officials - for it's institutions?

[Shwa]

A cross is not a culural symbol, it is the prime religious symbol of Christianity. You may have heard the story, this guy called Jesus was nailed to a .... oh, you have heard of it. Kirpans are most definitely religious symbols for Sikhs. The hypocrisy is Quebec being fiercely secular in banning one religious symbol while having another religious symbol hang in the legislature, sorry the National Assembly.

No. you can't have it both ways.

The niqab is not a religious symbol, it is not mentioned in the holy Koran and is thus a cultural expression. Many Muslim women do not cover their heads or faces because they do not have to.

Well first of all, any religious symbol is a cultural symbol and nothing more. If you have a beef with Christianity that's your problem. You are the one that brought in the idea of the niqab and thus elevated the perception of all this cultural material to an even plane. Thanks for that.

Yes. You can have it both ways. Is there some moral or legal code you can cites otherwise?

The point I am making is that can we allow this hypocrisy now and hope for the gradual change - through education and common social practice - to allow secularism to take it's inevitable path in the future?

[fellowtraveller]

Well first of all, any religious symbol is a cultural symbol and nothing more. If you have a beef with Christianity that's your problem. You are the one that brought in the idea of the niqab and thus elevated the perception of all this cultural material to an even plane. Thanks for that.

Incorrect. Religious symbols are not the same as cultural symbols. There are often many religions within a culture, and symbols do not cross those lines readily. An Egytpian Coptic Christian has nothing to do culturally with my aunt Tillie attending the United Church in Brandon, nothing at all culturally but they do share one religious symbol every Sunday. I have no beef with Christianity, I do have a beef with ignorance wherever it is found.

Review the thread, I did not introduce the niqab to the discussion, I pointed out that it is not a religious symbol. I did that because it is not one, women are not wearing it because of any requirement of Islam.

You are welcome, glad to help anytime.

[fellowtraveller]

I didn't miss a level at all, but for the purposes of the expression of democracy, the individual is not an island unto themselves. So, in favour of the individual you have ignored - or dimished the importance of - the collective. Not to mention completely ignored my questions. So there is no turnabout there. How about elsewhere?

Well, for one, you will note that in the OP that it is the city council that recites a prayer, in whose room the symbols are displayed; it was the city that has to pay for the so-called damages of the complainant. This would indicate to me - for the purposes of democracy - that it sure is the municipality - their representatives - is pushing back. The mayor - as mayors usually are - is the chair and main spokesperson for any city council. So let's not get confused about that.

For two, your 'fair play' turnabout is a straw man, and an inadedquate one at that. I would hope that if the citizens of the municipality were that put out that they too would initiate civil disobedience, protest, sanction, etc. But there doesn't seem to be any of that at all. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the mayor and his council has a fairly firm backing in the citizenry of Saguenay and the issue falls back to how responsible is a municipality - the citizens and it's elected officials - for it's institutions?

Wow, your first sentence is the most backward thing I have seen here in some time.

The individual is not so easily dismissed in democracy as you would hope. Ever hear of one man, one vote? Ever hear of the Charter of Rights and Freedioms? It does not address the rights of the collective, its main purpose is to describe the rights of individuals, it is the foundation of democracy in our society. The exercise of power is done by your collective but it must be done without contravening any of the rights of inidviduals, except in the most extreme circumstances. THat is the basis of democracy in Canada, like it or not. That is what the governments in this country and all the courts have in the background of what they do. They are obliged to operate within the parameters of the Charter. The Constitution describes the operation of governments and institutions, but the indivudual rights described in the Charter trump it.

[Shwa]

Incorrect. Religious symbols are not the same as cultural symbols.

Is Merriam-Webster good enough for you?

Culture

a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture>

There are often many religions within a culture, and symbols do not cross those lines readily.

Nonsense. on ones knees for prayer is an easy example.

An Egytpian Coptic Christian has nothing to do culturally with my aunt Tillie attending the United Church in Brandon, nothing at all culturally but they do share one religious symbol every Sunday.

Seriously, you're kidding right? Your Aunt Tillie shares many cross-cultural things with an Egyptian Coptic Christian besides religion - cultural materials, technologies, likely similar morals and ethics, etc.

I have no beef with Christianity, I do have a beef with ignorance wherever it is found.

No doubt leading to self-conflict.

Review the thread, I did not introduce the niqab to the discussion, I pointed out that it is not a religious symbol. I did that because it is not one, women are not wearing it because of any requirement of Islam.

...A blatantly religous symbol is permitted to hang in the centre of government, while at the same time kirpans are declared weapons and the niqab is assumed to be a symbol of degradation...

And you yourself wrote earlier that "no, Quebec is not tolerant of other cultures."

All they are doing is displaying their traditional cultural symbols.

[Shwa]

Wow, your first sentence is the most backward thing I have seen here in some time.

Well for someone who states that there is nothing in common between a Eqyptian Coptic Christian and their Aunt Tillie other that their religious symbols on Sundays, what you considered backward is, more or less, irrelevant.

The individual is not so easily dismissed in democracy as you would hope. Ever hear of one man, one vote? Ever hear of the Charter of Rights and Freedioms? It does not address the rights of the collective, its main purpose is to describe the rights of individuals, it is the foundation of democracy in our society. The exercise of power is done by your collective but it must be done without contravening any of the rights of inidviduals, except in the most extreme circumstances. THat is the basis of democracy in Canada, like it or not. That is what the governments in this country and all the courts have in the background of what they do. They are obliged to operate within the parameters of the Charter. The Constitution describes the operation of g overnments and institutions, but the indivudual rights described in the Charter trump it.

Of course context has no meaning right?

[fellowtraveller]

Well for someone who states that there is nothing in common between a Eqyptian Coptic Christian and their Aunt Tillie other that their religious symbols on Sundays, what you considered backward is, more or less, irrelevant.

Aunt Tillie has far more in common with an Orthodox Jew in Canada than a fellow Christian in backqwoods Egypt. One is from her culture, the other from her religion.

Of course context has no meaning right?

In the context of your meaningless question punctuated by a smiley face? No.

[Shwa]

Aunt Tillie has far more in common with an Orthodox Jew in Canada than a fellow Christian in backqwoods Egypt. One is from her culture, the other from her religion.

Now you are just back tracking. Proven wrong, you are now hiding behind degrees.

Incorrect. Religious symbols are not the same as cultural symbols. There are often many religions within a culture, and symbols do not cross those lines readily. An Egytpian Coptic Christian has nothing to do culturally with my aunt Tillie attending the United Church in Brandon, nothing at all culturally but they do share one religious symbol every Sunday.

Your Aunt Tillie would also experience cultural dissimilarities, including differences in religious practices, with an Orthodox Jew in Canada too. But that doesn't mean that because there is more similarities with an Orthodox Jew in Canada that there are no cultural similarities with Coptic Christian Egyptians outside of their religious practice. That is nonsense.

So the fact remains that a crucifix is a cultural symbol for a given group of people and in Quebec, even a signification of a common heritage - tradition. The kirpan and niqab cannot claim such a pedigree in Quebec.

In the context of your meaningless question punctuated by a smiley face? No.

No. The context is culture. You have difficulty grasping that for some reason.