Quebec's Bill 62

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because it's a new way to justify persecuting one religion over another.  The nun's habit is like a hard hat.

In a sense it is.  You have to wear one if you want to work.  I suppose.  I was never a Nun.

How does that persecute anything?

Edited October 25, 2017 by bcsapper

[Guest]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Well it should be obvious, they're trying to appear reasonable by not being specific.

In these complaint-based time we live in It should be ridiculously easy for people to underscore the idiocy of this law by insisting that officials order any type of face covering be removed.

All you have to do is say 'I'm concerned' and voila.

I agree, although I understand they are just talking about public service?  It seems like it's just an extension of passports and driver's licences.  Obviously one cannot cover one's face when using those, so if I was availing myself of a public office I wouldn't be too hurt if I had to show my face.  Not sure about the whole bus idea though.

Although I am against a ban, sometimes I think one just has to say, too bad. It's only a religion.

[Benz]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is actually a new clarification on the law, only from yesterday.  So yes you are correct, but only because of this recent change.  Before that the bill seemed to be about cultural homogenization, or forcing people to act like lapsed Catholics.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-face-covering-guidelines-bill-62-1.4368594

If it was like you said, we would be trying to assimilate all muslims and change them into catholics. Not only the muslims are totally free to practice their religions, they can even use tax break to promote their religions like any other religions in this country. If we are trying to homogenized them, we definitely suffer from lack of efficiency. lollll

[hot enough]

 

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Please discuss this on one of your own topics.  Thank you.

Your wish is my command. Your selectivity highlights your claim as being a specious one, Goddess. This discussion that has all of a sudden got your knickers in a twist goes back to Betsy/Blackbird. 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by hot enough

[Guest]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

In the catholic school system.

 

 

Not just girls.  I was.  Of course, it might have stopped now.

[hot enough]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Not just girls.  I was.  Of course, it might have stopped now.

What saved you, a sex change operation?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. They are the same.  Someone else said they're different because it's a work uniform.

 

They are most definitely not the same.  Totally and completely different.  No similarities whatsoever.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What saved you, a sex change operation?

Have you ever tried to change the sex of a Nun?  They get quite upset!

[hot enough]

How many years service did you do then? Before or after your service to the old cow?

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Agree.

But one is for women who have chosen to serve God as their profession - thus, a uniform.  The other is mandated for all women.  Few nuns wear the habit these days and they are not murdered or beaten for not wearing it.  If nuns are required to wear burkas, I'm unaware of this requirement, you'd have to fill me in.

I wonder if the Pope suddenly made it a requirement for all Catholic women to wear burkas or face coverings at all times, how that would go over?  I suspect most people would be livid.

He would need a religious police to whip them if they were seen out of one.  I doubt the Swiss Guards would be up for it.

Maybe there's somewhere they could go for training...

[Goddess]

I'm assuming the law would also apply to protesters.

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They are most definitely not the same.  Totally and completely different.  No similarities whatsoever.

Well, they are religious garments are they not?  Seems to me that that is the defining attribute of both things.

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You have to wear one if you want to work.   

So being a nun is a job?  So, nuns don't have jobs they are just... nuns?

Forgive me, but I want to see how far you will take this so that you figure out how to put restrictions on Muslims.

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Well, they are religious garments are they not?  Seems to me that that is the defining attribute of both things.

There we differ then.  They are both religious garments, but to me their defining attribute would be the reason why they are worn.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

So being a nun is a job?  So, nuns don't have jobs they are just... nuns?

Forgive me, but I want to see how far you will take this so that you figure out how to put restrictions on Muslims.

Vocation?  I know they are pretty much volunteers.

Your second line is tripe, of course.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because it's a new way to justify persecuting one religion over another.  The nun's habit is like a hard hat.

The nun's habit doesn't cover their face.  So what do nuns have to do with bill 62?  The purpose of a nun's habit is also different.  It is not a sign for a fascist ideology which denies women's fundamental rights and treats them as inferiors and rejects our western freedoms and human rights.  It is hypocrisy to say one believes in equality and human rights for women, but accept this symbol in public places which means the opposite.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

They are both religious garments, but to me their defining attribute would be the reason why they are worn.

Ok, so this is off the table: "They are most definitely not the same. "

Why are they worn?  One person, being Christian, made a free choice to be poor, and to not start a family. She may wear a face covering.  The other can have a job, a family and may also wear a face covering.  The second person, being Muslim, is therefore brainwashed to follow God.

Just now, bcsapper said:

Vocation?  I know they are pretty much volunteers.

Your second line is tripe, of course.

Ok, so this is off the table: " You have to wear one if you want to work."

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

1. The nun's habit doesn't cover their face.   

2. It is not a sign for a fascist ideology...

1. Yes, there is a version of the habit that does.

2.  Ok, well NOW you have it.  This bigotry towards that religion is the key.  If it's a fascist ideology, then you should just say you want to ban it, and I have no more to discuss with you. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so this is off the table: "They are most definitely not the same. "

Why are they worn?  One person, being Christian, made a free choice to be poor, and to not start a family. She may wear a face covering.  The other can have a job, a family and may also wear a face covering.  The second person, being Muslim, is therefore brainwashed to follow God.

Ok, so this is off the table: " You have to wear one if you want to work."

 

They are most definitely not the same in the way you would like them to be. 

You're just engaging in a little sophistry to try and save your (risible) point.  I really don't know if Nuns get paid.  They don't starve.  Some of them teach.  So work?  Maybe.  It's definitely off  the point.  They choose to wear one.  No-one is going to hurt them if they don't.

If you believe no-one is going to hurt a Muslim woman who refuses to wear a Burka when she is told, then fair enough.  She might be brainwashed to follow God too.  Who knows.

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, there is a version of the habit that does.

2.  Ok, well NOW you have it.  This bigotry towards that religion is the key.  If it's a fascist ideology, then you should just say you want to ban it, and I have no more to discuss with you. 

No, I never said to ban the the ideology.  How would you ban an ideology?  It's not possible.  I disagree with it and don't defend it.  I don't agree that face coverings should be allowed in public because it is a form of intimidation and tells everyone they reject our culture of freedom and human rights.  If you want to call someone who disagrees with Islam a bigot, that's your choice.  But it's not a rational argument for anything.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

They are most definitely not the same in the way you would like them to be. 

Ok.

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

You're just engaging in a little sophistry to try and save your (risible) point.  I really don't know if Nuns get paid.  They don't starve.  Some of them teach.  So work?  Maybe.  It's definitely off  the point.  They choose to wear one.  No-one is going to hurt them if they don't.

Ok.

 

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

If you believe no-one is going to hurt a Muslim woman who refuses to wear a Burka when she is told, then fair enough.  She might be brainwashed to follow God too.  Who knows.

I don't know if no-one is going to 'hurt' a Muslim or not.  If we don't know then we don't need the government to ban the garment.  Remember when we banned Priests from hanging around children ?  Me neither.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

How would you ban an ideology?  It's not possible. 

It's fascist ideology, so ban it like hate speech.  Why not?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, there is a version of the habit that does.

2.  Ok, well NOW you have it.  This bigotry towards that religion is the key.  If it's a fascist ideology, then you should just say you want to ban it, and I have no more to discuss with you. 

I don't know fascists from hippies, but how would you advocate behaving towards a religion where entire countries have the death penalty for things we don't even hold to be against the law.  I'm definitely intolerant of those opinions.  I can't imagine why you are not.

Of course, those Muslims who hold the same views as me with regard to those extreme laws would be bigots too, I suppose.  And as I agree with those Muslims, that would make me tolerant of Islam.  Bits of it, anyway.

[blackbird]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

It's fascist ideology, so ban it like hate speech.  Why not?

Because there is no logistical way to ban a thought or ideology.  You know that.  You are saying banning a face covering is the same as trying to ban an ideology.  It's not.  A face covering is a physical thing.

You want to label anyone who disagrees with the face covering as a bigot or racist.  That's the only excuse liberals can use when they have no other answer.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok.

Ok.

 

I don't know if no-one is going to 'hurt' a Muslim or not.  If we don't know then we don't need the government to ban the garment.  Remember when we banned Priests from hanging around children ?  Me neither.

I'm against banning it. I said so many times.  It doesn't mean I have to like it, or refrain from saying what I think of it.