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

[DogOnPorch]

At what point, or range in time, will Islam will "dominate" Canada?

Who can say? All that is certain is that it will dominate because it says it will. Unless you're another poster who thinks the Quran (et al) isn't taken seriously by its practitioners. I take Islam at its word.

No. That is what we are taught. But in the real world forming a testable hypothesis is difficult so working scientists eschew that approach in many fields and instead determine "truth" by looking for a consensus among people who study a topic (i.e. something is true because enough scientists believe it to be true).

I was under the impression that there are no experts in science. No expert opinions...no ivory towers.

[bleeding heart]

No. That is what we are taught. But in the real world forming a falsifiable hypothesis is difficult so working scientists eschew that approach in many fields and instead determine "truth" by looking for a consensus among people who study a topic (i.e. something is true because enough scientists believe it to be true).

Even so far as this is true (and it surely is not always the case), that sounds less like a description of science as an ideology, and more like an (arguably) ideological undermining of scientific principles.

Whereas religion, for example, is perhaps inherently ideological...not the deviation from accepted doctrine, but the doctrines themselves.

Edited August 26, 2013 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

Even so far as this is true (and it surely is not always the case), that sounds less like a description of science as an ideology, and more like an (arguably) ideological undermining of scientific principles.

Well if practicing scientists do this and reject critics who claim they are not following the scientific method then who is the arbitrator that can decide that the scientists are wrong? Seems to me it makes more sense to say the scientific method is a pliable ideology.

Whereas religion, for example, is perhaps inherently ideological...not the deviation from accepted doctrine, but the doctrines themselves.

All religions provide a metaphysical philosophy which is as valid as anything written by philosophers. The trouble is it the philosophy get mixed in with so much dogma that it is difficult to separate the two. With any religion you will find some followers who focus on the philosophy rather than than dogma and others which ignore the philosophy and only think of the dogma. Edited August 26, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

I was under the impression that there are no experts in science. No expert opinions...no ivory towers.

Don't know where you get that from. Once cannot have a useful opinion about a scientific topic unless one spend a lot of time learning about the topic. The only question is whether formal credentials are necessary in addition to the knowledge. I say no - but if one does not have the paper credentials then one still needs to be able to demonstrate that one has done the work to learn about the topic. Edited August 26, 2013 by TimG

[DogOnPorch]

Don't know where you get that from. Once cannot have a useful opinion about science unless one spend a lot of time learning about the topic. The only question is whether formal credentials are necessary in addition to the knowledge. I say no - but if one does not have the paper credentials then one still needs to be able to demonstrate that one has done the work to learn about the topic.

There are no expert opinions in science. If Stephen Hawking said something that didn't make muster in the peer reviews, he wouldn't be given a 'pass' because he's Stephen Hawking.

[TimG]

There are no expert opinions in science. If Stephen Hawking said something that didn't make muster in the peer reviews, he wouldn't be given a 'pass' because he's Stephen Hawking.

He would be given much greater deference than some nobody. In fact, the onus would be on critics to prove Hawking wrong rather than on Hawking to prove himself right. If the claim was about something where there is considerable uncertainty and no way to prove right or wrong then Hawking's claim is would likely to be accepted as truth.

Who has the onus of proof matters a lot if there are no clear answers.

Edited August 26, 2013 by TimG

[DogOnPorch]

He would be given much greater deference than some nobody. In fact, the onus would be on critics to prove Hawking wrong rather than on Hawking to prove himself right. If the claim was about something where there is considerable uncertainty and no way to prove right or wrong then Hawking's claim is would likely to be accepted as truth.

Who has the onus of proof matters a lot if there are no clear answers.

I think we'll just have to disagree.

[carepov]

Who can say? All that is certain is that it will dominate because it says it will. Unless you're another poster who thinks the Quran (et al) isn't taken seriously by its practitioners. I take Islam at its word.

1. Not all Muslims want to "dominate", not all interpretations of the Quran conclude that Islam's goal is to dominate. Some interpretations of non-Islamic texts also say that they will dominate how can you be certain that Islam will dominate but not some other ideology?

2. Even if the above point is conceded to you, then the stated goal of Islamic domination has been around for 1300 years and Islam is nowhere near domination - controlling only a tiny sliver of the world's political clout.

[Icebound]

DOP, There are lots of ideas that won't die.

Islamism is but one such idea...

So is Marxism, Fascizm, Catholicism, secularism, Protestantism, Atheism, Transcendentalism, Capitalism, and any number of isms that have existed and do exist throughout the world.

Each of these have their adherents, and each of these have had times of great growth, and times of serious decline. But yes, the "idea" doesn't die... there is always SOMEONE to keep it alive.

But have any of them truly dominated, as you suggest Islam will?.... NO... because all of them have serious failures, and the grass becomes greener on another side of the street. A new idea is born, or an ancient one revived, and the course of history changes.

For good or bad, I won't predict, but I will predict this: You will not stop an idea with laws that suppress the external suppression of that idea. You will only stop an idea with a better idea.

So you don't like people practicing Islamism. Give them something better. I submit that even if it is not recognized at first, it will eventually be so. Usually at about the 3rd generation, maybe the 4th.

But banning headscarves or whatever, is just a waste of time and parliamentary paper....

....

Edited August 26, 2013 by Icebound

[Boges]

This is a significant thread drift as the law would also effect Sikhs and Jews and to a lesser extent some Christians.

We see in Europe that fundamentalist Islam has caused many problem in many places. But if we're going to allow immigration we can't ban religious garb and if Quebec uses the Not Withstanding Clause to enforce this unconstitutional law, there should be consequence from the Feds.

[DogOnPorch]

1. Not all Muslims want to "dominate", not all interpretations of the Quran conclude that Islam's goal is to dominate. Some interpretations of non-Islamic texts also say that they will dominate how can you be certain that Islam will dominate but not some other ideology?

2. Even if the above point is conceded to you, then the stated goal of Islamic domination has been around for 1300 years and Islam is nowhere near domination - controlling only a tiny sliver of the world's political clout.

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.

DOP, There are lots of ideas that won't die.

Islamism is but one such idea...

So is Marxism, Fascizm, Catholicism, secularism, Protestantism, Atheism, Transcendentalism, Capitalism, and any number of isms that have existed and do exist throughout the world.

Each of these have their adherents, and each of these have had times of great growth, and times of serious decline. But yes, the "idea" doesn't die... there is always SOMEONE to keep it alive.

But have any of them truly dominated, as you suggest Islam will?.... NO... because all of them have serious failures, and the grass becomes greener on another side of the street. A new idea is born, or an ancient one revived, and the course of history changes.

For good or bad, I won't predict, but I will predict this: You will not stop an idea with laws that suppress the external suppression of that idea. You will only stop an idea with a better idea.

So you don't like people practicing Islamism. Give them something better. I submit that even if it is not recognized at first, it will eventually be so. Usually at about the 3rd generation, maybe the 4th.

But banning headscarves or whatever, is just a waste of time and parliamentary paper....

....

I've stated numerous times in this very thread that banning things is silly and pointless. I agree that a 'better idea' is needed. However, it is dubious that Islam...already perfect...will support a 'better idea'.

Edited August 26, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

This is a significant thread drift as the law would also effect Sikhs and Jews and to a lesser extent some Christians.

We see in Europe that fundamentalist Islam has caused many problem in many places. But if we're going to allow immigration we can't ban religious garb and if Quebec uses the Not Withstanding Clause to enforce this unconstitutional law, there should be consequence from the Feds.

I agree. We can't pick and choose when it comes to a person's religion. Banning elements of a certain faith would only drive it underground and breed resentment. If a nation is going to allow religious freedom, it has to go all the way; even if that religious freedom threatens current rights and freedoms held dear.

[carepov]

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.

Can you quote the Quran where it states that Islam will dominate?

From my readings, the Quran and Islam have peace, tolerance and charity as pillars. The calls for violence and domination are misinterpretation of the Quran by a minority of radical Muslims.

http://english.islammessage.com/articledetails.aspx?articleId=649

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/207/viewall/

http://www.muslim.org/islam/tolerance.htm

[DogOnPorch]

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?

[Smallc]

It isn't as if it's the only religion with that goal.

[DogOnPorch]

It isn't as if it's the only religion with that goal.

Cite.

[Smallc]

Cite.

Certainly

http://agnosticreview.com/mission.htm

I hate them all equally.

[Smallc]

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:

[cybercoma]

Secularism is an ideology. Hamburgers is just a random word you picked because you don't understand the difference between an ideology and a thing.

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

[Smallc]

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

I'd prefer pork chops, personally.

[TimG]

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

It is common for people so immersed in a ideology that they cannot see it as an ideology. You are no different than many committed followers of a religion. Edited August 26, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

It is common for people so immersed in a ideology that they cannot see it as an ideology. You are no different than many committed followers of a religion.

Oh right. I'm blindly following an ideology by not blindly following an ideology. Birds and I are practically the same because they fly and I don't.

[TimG]

I'm blindly following an ideology by not blindly following an ideology.

Your ideology is a rejection of what you see as ideologies. Laws like what the PQ wants to pass are no different than laws that mandate Christian or Muslim observances in other countries. It makes no difference that the rationalization is because the PQ wants to promote the 'secular religion' - it is still a law that seeks to impose the majority ideology on the minority.

Such laws can be justified but they require more than - we don't want ideologies that compete with the majority ideology to be visible.

Edited August 26, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Your ideology is a rejection of what you see as ideologies. Laws like what the PQ wants to pass are no different than laws that mandate Christian or Muslim observances in other countries. It makes no difference that the rationalization is because the PQ wants to promote the 'secular religion' - it is still a law that seeks to impose the majority ideology on the minority.

Such laws can be justified but they require more than - we don't want ideologies that compete with the majority ideology to be visible.

You're a real piece of work, Tim. You don't even know that I think Marois's law is idiotic, do you? You're too busy making assumptions and telling me what I think to actually take the time to ask or read my posts to know what I think.

[TimG]

You don't even know that I think Marois's law is idiotic, do you?

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. Edited August 26, 2013 by TimG