Racism or Secularism? Quebec looking to ban all religious garb.

[DogOnPorch]

I like this one especially:

2 Thess 1:8

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Fair enough. Rather than turning the other cheek, Christians are actually supposed to kill the unbeliever.

Can you show me this in action? Do Christians take vengeance on those that do not believe that Jesus is Lord? Do believers riot and murder across Christendom if the Lord Jesus Christ is mocked or insulted? Does one have to look to cults of personality like the LRA to find vengeance in Christianity? Are other religions banned from existing or forced to pay a tax in Christian majority lands? Oh, well...we already know the answers to these questions...don't we?

Note...I took an unplanned 60 day vacation from MLW for posting violent imagery. So be careful what you post...no Christians beheading unbelievers...etc.

[Smallc]

Can you show me this in action?

Really? There is an entire history leading up to recent times...Ireland, the Balkans...and on and on and on.

[Black Dog]

There is no such thing as a moderate Quran. It's the Word of God. It is not open to revision. Islam will grow in Canada by both immigration and generally higher birth rates among practitioners. Not to mention conversions. It will dominate because that's exactly what the Quran states.

Hoo boy. Don't let this DoP guy answer and e-mails from exiled Kenyan royalty. He seems like the credulous sort.

[Black Dog]

You think I don't know that? It is pretty obvious that you would oppose the law. But that does not change the fact that you seem to have a problem acknowledging that secularism is an ideology when people like Marois start wanting to pass laws like this.

Let's say you're right and secularism is an ideology.

Who cares?

[Black Dog]

If secularism gets to be a religion, then so do hamburgers.

Shake Shack is the One True Burger.

[DogOnPorch]

Really? There is an entire history leading up to recent times...Ireland, the Balkans...and on and on and on.

You feel these are good examples of Christianity trying to dominate all other religions? Protestants and RCs are both Christian and the conflict in the Balkans wasn't necessarily divided along religious lines. The reality is that Ireland is now more about the British than religion and the Balkans has always been a tinderbox going back to Alexander's days.

[Black Dog]

You feel these are good examples of Christianity trying to dominate all other religions? Protestants and RCs are both Christian and the conflict in the Balkans wasn't necessarily divided along religious lines. The reality is that Ireland is now more about the British than religion and the Balkans has always been a tinderbox going back to Alexander's days.

Never heard of the Crusades, the 30 Years War and numerous other european religious conflicts as well as the entire history of colonialism, I guess.

[Smallc]

You feel these are good examples of Christianity trying to dominate all other religions? Protestants and RCs are both Christian and the conflict in the Balkans wasn't necessarily divided along religious lines. The reality is that Ireland is now more about the British than religion and the Balkans has always been a tinderbox going back to Alexander's days.

That's pretty weak. Christianity has tried to dominate Europe and the world throughout its existence. Islam is no different in that it will fail just as spectacularly.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Smallc

[Black Dog]

That's pretty weak. Christianity has tried to dominate Europe and the world throughout its existence. Islam is no different in that it will fail just as spectacularly.

Except Christianity did dominate Europe.

[DogOnPorch]

That's pretty weak. Christianity has tried to dominate Europe and the world throughout its existence. Islam is no different in that it will fail just as spectacularly.

If you dig a bit further, you'll find that the motivation behind European nations taking over the world wasn't religion but economics. Christianity went along for the ride via missions and such as a side effect.

[DogOnPorch]

Never heard of the Crusades, the 30 Years War and numerous other european religious conflicts as well as the entire history of colonialism, I guess.

The classic Crusades were a response to the aggressive nature of Islam. Pilgrims to the Holy land were being attacked enroute, etc.

The 30 Years War involved both Christians and Muslims.

Colonialism's motivation wasn't religious.

[Smallc]

Except Christianity did dominate Europe.

Did...and right now Islam controls the muslim world...but not forever. Religion can't survive as things stand now.

[Smallc]

Islam is a terrible religion...probably the worst of the big ones...but I don't see the value in shielding Christianity from scorn.

[carepov]

There are many passages in the Quran that state its goal of domination. One of the most famous is:

And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do. But if they turn away - then know that Allah is your protector. Excellent is the protector, and Excellent is the helper. (8:39/40)

Another would be:

It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allah dislike it. (61:9)

Seriously...did you think there wasn't?

Question for you...a simple one. What does Islam mean?

Yes of course there is but context is everything. It may be that the quotes in the Quran that incite violence are there in the context of war, or defending Islam.

In contrast:

The Qur’an goes further than religious freedom, instructing Muslims to show tolerance and respect to other religions. The verse, “Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance” (6:108), directly forbids verbal religious intolerance

And how would you interpret:

“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256),

My understanding is that Islam means submit or submission. I will take a guess that you take the word submit and think of a WWF move forcing an opponent to submit to ones power. It is actually more like submitting oneself to Allah.

[cybercoma]

You think I don't know that? It is pretty obvious that you would oppose the law. But that does not change the fact that you seem to have a problem acknowledging that secularism is an ideology when people like Marois start wanting to pass laws like this.

What I have a problem with is people saying secularism is a religion.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes of course there is but context is everything. It may be that the quotes in the Quran that incite violence are there in the context of war, or defending Islam.

In contrast:

The Qur’an goes further than religious freedom, instructing Muslims to show tolerance and respect to other religions. The verse, “Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance” (6:108), directly forbids verbal religious intolerance

And how would you interpret:

“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256),

My understanding is that Islam means submit or submission. I will take a guess that you take the word submit and think of a WWF move forcing an opponent to submit to ones power. It is actually more like submitting oneself to Allah.

The problem with the peaceful bits of the Quran is that they are superseded by the nasty bits. As for there being no compulsion in Islam, what's the penalty for leaving the faith? Islam indeed means submission. Not figuratively, either. For example, the five prayers a day are part of the main Pillars of Islam....talk about compulsion.

[bleeding heart]

Islam is a terrible religion...probably the worst of the big ones...but I don't see the value in shielding Christianity from scorn.

Islam is the most regressive and oppressive of a mostly bad lot, I agree.

That's one of the very reasons it's going to fail...at least in terms of world domination.

It will adapt or die.

Hell, even the most hardcore fundamentalist Christians--those who despise their liberal Christian brethren--are ironically only around because the liberalization of Christianity allowed the religion to survive at all.

[carepov]

The problem with the peaceful bits of the Quran is that they are superseded by the nasty bits. As for there being no compulsion in Islam, what's the penalty for leaving the faith? Islam indeed means submission. Not figuratively, either. For example, the five prayers a day are part of the main Pillars of Islam....talk about compulsion.

As you have just admitted, the messages in the Quran (and Bible) are subject to interpretation. Also, it is up to the individual to decide what to take literally and what to take figuratively, including the word "submission". Some moderates even ignore entire parts of the Quran (Bible).

Earlier you wrote that it is certain that Islam will dominate because it is written in the Quran. On top of all the earlier refutations, I can also say: "Islam will not dominate because it is written in the Quran".

[Boges]

Seems that this plan is proving popular in Quebec

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/26/proposed_quebec_ban_on_religious_symbols_takes_step_forward.html

MONTREAL—Quebec’s proposed ban on the wearing of religious symbols has drawn criticism from across the country, but a new poll suggests it has strong support in the province.

The measures designed by the minority Parti Québécois government to underscore Quebec’s secular nature may also now have the political support necessary to pass the legislation into law in the coming months.

The so-called charter of Quebec values, to be unveiled in the coming weeks, proposes barring public servants from wearing veils, kippas, turbans and even crucifixes while at work. A leaked report last week said the measures would apply to anyone who draws their salary from the public purse: bureaucrats, lawyers, police officers, teachers, and even doctor and nurses.

No bill has been tabled yet but the initiative has already sparked intense debate, criticism and speculation about the social and legal ramifications of a crackdown on personal displays of religiosity.

Still, the PQ plan got a boost Monday with the results of an opinion poll showing that two or of every three respondents believed there are “too many accommodations” for religious groups in Quebec. A majority of French-speakers surveyed said they backed the ban while a majority of anglophones and allophones, whose mother tongue is neither French nor English, were strongly opposed to the proposed measures.

But with a provincial election likely less than one year away, Premier Pauline Marois’ party appears to be on solid footing with potential voters — a conclusion that was confirmed Monday when third-party Coalition Avenir Québec Leader François Legault said his caucus would support the broad themes of the government’s plan.

So it would appear that the PQ are appealing to their base here and it might work.

Still the Feds should not allow the PQ to do something like this.

[g_bambino]

Still the Feds should not allow the PQ to do something like this.

There's absolutely nothing the feds can do to stop it, unless the Lieutenant Governor reserves Royal Assent to the bill and passes it to the Governor General. But, that would just feed into the PQ's oppressed victim narrative.

[Boges]

There's absolutely nothing the feds can do to stop it, unless the Lieutenant Governor reserves Royal Assent to the bill and passes it to the Governor General. But, that would just feed into the PQ's oppressed victim narrative.

So the Federal Government can't stop provinces from passing unconstitutional laws? There would be a slippery slope there.

[Smallc]

The Notwithstanding Clause allows this to happen.

[Boges]

The Notwithstanding Clause allows this to happen.

So does that mean a province, let's say Alberta, can pass a law making Same-sex marriage illegal? Opps no they can't!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

In March, 2000, the Alberta Legislature passed Bill 202, which amended the province's Marriage Act[10] to include an opposite-sex-only definition of marriage as well as the notwithstanding clause in order to insulate the definition from Charter challenges. However, the provinces may use the "notwithstanding clause" only on legislation that they otherwise have the authority to enact, and the Supreme Court ruled in Reference re Same-Sex Marriage that the definition of marriage is within the exclusive domain of the Canadian Parliament.[4]

So if the SCOC declared freedom of religion the "exclusive domaine of Canadian Parliament" Quebec would be SOL?

It's interesting reading the Wiki page that the clause was a silly compromise that Trudeau never approved of. All the more evidence that creating the charter was a complete waste of time.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Boges

[DogOnPorch]

As you have just admitted, the messages in the Quran (and Bible) are subject to interpretation. Also, it is up to the individual to decide what to take literally and what to take figuratively, including the word "submission". Some moderates even ignore entire parts of the Quran (Bible).

Earlier you wrote that it is certain that Islam will dominate because it is written in the Quran. On top of all the earlier refutations, I can also say: "Islam will not dominate because it is written in the Quran".

No...what Mohammed said earlier in his career is superseded by what he said later. The Quran, according to Islam, is the verbatim words of God and is not subject to revision. In fact, the major differences between Islamic sects involve who was supposed to succeed Mohammed rather than the contents of the Quran. The only variations are the various non-Arabic translations...which is why it is taught in Arabic. But you knew that...

God dictated the Quran to Mohammed after a flight from Arabia on a winged beast to the 'furthest mosque'. In tow was the angel Gabriel. From the furthest mosque, Mohammed's ascended to heaven to meet God. Later, after Mohammed's death, Omar's conquering armies overran the Byzantines including Jerusalem claiming the Jewish Temple ruin was the furthest mosque...actual location never mentioned. This bit of iconoclasm is how Jerusalem became 'the third holiest place in Islam'.

[Smallc]

Oh yeah, a complete waste . I guess we'll find out the legality on a court challenge.