Quebec's Bill 62

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

...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 am not religious, but I believe in freedom of religion.  We don't have to behave any way, based on how other countries are nor do I need to tie it back to the religion.  

There's some reason that people need to pass judgment publicly.  The state doesn't need to do that when considering questions of reasonable accommodation.  
 

Just now, bcsapper said:

I'm definitely intolerant of those opinions.  I can't imagine why you are not.

Of course I am.  I don't have a need to denounce it in the context of a discussion of reasonable accommodation.  Why would I?  

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am not religious, but I believe in freedom of religion.  We don't have to behave any way, based on how other countries are nor do I need to tie it back to the religion.  

There's some reason that people need to pass judgment publicly.  The state doesn't need to do that when considering questions of reasonable accommodation.  
 

Of course I am.  I don't have a need to denounce it in the context of a discussion of reasonable accommodation.  Why would I?  

 

If others do, why do you think it is bigotry? 

Or is bigotry okay?  Virtuous even, if the opinions and ideas against which a bigot is railing are more disgusting that the idea of bigotry itself?

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If others do, why do you think it is bigotry? 

I don't think it's necessarily bigotry to criticize a religion.

 

27 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Or is bigotry okay?  Virtuous even, if the opinions and ideas against which a bigot is railing are more disgusting that the idea of bigotry itself?

Bigotry is mostly lazy and incorrect thinking.  Bigotry generally is against people not ideas.

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think it's necessarily bigotry to criticize a religion.

 

Bigotry is mostly lazy and incorrect thinking.  Bigotry generally is against people not ideas.

It's tough to decry an idea without showing contempt and disgust for those who espouse it.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's tough to decry an idea without showing contempt and disgust for those who espouse it.

No it's not at all.  Just do the first part.... this part:decry an idea

then stop talking before you starting showing this: contempt and disgust for those who espouse it.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No it's not at all.  Just do the first part.... this part:decry an idea

then stop talking before you starting showing this: contempt and disgust for those who espouse it.

But then people will say, "you have to be kidding me!  Who the hell would do that?!?!"

And really, what on earth is wrong with showing contempt and disgust for contemptible and disgusting people anyway?  As long as one restricts it to them, of course.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

But then people will say, "you have to be kidding me!  Who the hell would do that?!?!"

People should be aware of how worldly they are.  The only place you will run into people who are far less worldly than you is in an online forum I think.

 

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

And really, what on earth is wrong with showing contempt and disgust for contemptible and disgusting people anyway?  As long as one restricts it to them, of course.

What are you doing - asking me to condemn people who call others out now ? 

Go ahead.  For me, I try not to moralize, it doesn't usually lead anywhere.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Michael Hardner

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

People should be aware of how worldly they are.  The only place you will run into people who are far less worldly than you is in an online forum I think.

I don't think having an opinion on a religion is an indicator of worldliness, or lack thereof.  It just all seems so mindmeltingly obvious to me.

 

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What are you doing - asking me to condemn people who call others out now ? 

Go ahead.  For me, I try not to moralize, it doesn't usually lead anywhere.

I thought that was exactly what you were doing.  My mistake, I guess.

[taxme]

15 hours ago, betsy said:

It's not religion!  It depends on the person.

That would be like saying the same thing to opposing groups - like political parties! Democrats against Republicans.  Conservatives against Liberals against NDP!

 

Or, to races!  Look at the race-related divisions we have!

Or, to genders!  Is there over-all unity? 

Even families are not spared.  Look at the stats for broken marriage.  Who do you blame for that?  MARRIAGE?  If there is no marriage, there wouldn't be any divorce?

 

Or, to things - like guns.  Like as if a gun would go off on its own and kill people. Look how divided people are about it!

 

Heck - you can even say the same thing to forums!  Look at the division in this forum.  Some even went off in anger to create another forum!

 

Opposing views is natural.  It's part of life.  It's how one approaches it and deals with it, that matters.

 

 

1. That is the same as saying it is not all gun owners that is the problem. It all depends on the person. 

2. Well, at least conservatives and liberals haven't started any wars between themselves yet. 

3. What can you expect when you start mixing many races together. It will create division eventually as one will want to try and dominate the others. Of course Canada's multicultural program and agenda will be the start to this race division one day. Many of those EU countries that took in thousands of migrants this past year are starting to find this out thanks to their implementing multiculturalism. They are having big problems now with those migrants. 

3. Marriage? The end of a great love affair.  Maybe no one should get married than. Just live together and hope for the best. At least a couple can save thousands of dollars not getting married, and the same for getting a divorce. Plenty of money to save their also. 

4. When it comes to guns, I don't no where to start with that issue. But even with gun laws, there are still people being shot every day by people who have no licence to own that gun nor bother to register them. We already have laws in place for people who try to injure or kill anyone. One does not need a gun to kill someone. 

5. I can only say that there are no two people who will think exactly alike. You and I may agree on one thing, and oppose each other on something else. It would be great if everybody agreed with me but I know that is not going to happen. I can only say that at least this website has allowed the members here to speak their minds, and have allowed each of us to give our own opinions and points of view without any censorship or penalty. When I am told that my opinions and points of view are not welcome here anymore well then I guess I will have to move on. So far, so good. 

5. Everyone has the right to their opinions and points of view. If any member cannot accept this right for others, then maybe they should move on and go find another website that will agree with them, and will shut down others whom they disagree with. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think having an opinion on a religion is an indicator of worldliness, or lack thereof.  It just all seems so mindmeltingly obvious to me.

 You were saying people would say "you have to be kidding me!  Who the hell would do that?!?!".  I don't know anybody who would say that to me.  People do say "who would SAY THAT ?" when I tell them what people write to me on these forums though.

 

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 You were saying people would say "you have to be kidding me!  Who the hell would do that?!?!".  I don't know anybody who would say that to me.  People do say "who would SAY THAT ?" when I tell them what people write to me on these forums though.

I encounter that same thing, Michael. People can't believe the total impossibilities that folks on this forum will deny, will avoid facing. 

The remarks are often, "that is delusional/childish/juvenile/... . 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 You were saying people would say "you have to be kidding me!  Who the hell would do that?!?!".  I don't know anybody who would say that to me.  People do say "who would SAY THAT ?" when I tell them what people write to me on these forums though.

 

They would if no-one had ever told them. 

When they say "who would SAY THAT ?", do they agree or disagree with what was said?

[betsy]

9 hours ago, taxme said:

1. That is the same as saying it is not all gun owners that is the problem. It all depends on the person.

Well, it does.  How many gun owners go killing?

 

Quote

 

2. Well, at least conservatives and liberals haven't started any wars between themselves yet. 

 

What do you think the violent protests happening are all about?  Violent clashes aren't "wars?" 

 

Quote

3. What can you expect when you start mixing many races together. It will create division eventually as one will want to try and dominate the others. Of course Canada's multicultural program and agenda will be the start to this race division one day. Many of those EU countries that took in thousands of migrants this past year are starting to find this out thanks to their implementing multiculturalism. They are having big problems now with those migrants. 

See? Socialist  policies  that's to blame, not the migrants.  If migrants are allowed to do as they please , why shouldn't they?

 

Quote

3. Marriage? The end of a great love affair.  Maybe no one should get married than. Just live together and hope for the best. At least a couple can save thousands of dollars not getting married, and the same for getting a divorce. Plenty of money to save their also. 

There's no unity when couples divorce.  Again, who do you blame, the institution of marriage? 

 

Quote

4. When it comes to guns, I don't no where to start with that issue. But even with gun laws, there are still people being shot every day by people who have no licence to own that gun nor bother to register them. We already have laws in place for people who try to injure or kill anyone. One does not need a gun to kill someone. 

Laws or not, guns don't go off all by themselves. 

 

Quote

5. I can only say that there are no two people who will think exactly alike. You and I may agree on one thing, and oppose each other on something else. It would be great if everybody agreed with me but I know that is not going to happen. I can only say that at least this website has allowed the members here to speak their minds, and have allowed each of us to give our own opinions and points of view without any censorship or penalty. When I am told that my opinions and points of view are not welcome here anymore well then I guess I will have to move on. So far, so good. 

That's why you can't say it's religion's fault. 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

They would if no-one had ever told them. 

Yes and I have to try to be empathetic to people who are not curious to the world around them, government, legal frameworks, social trends and so on.  I have come to accept that that kind of ignorance is a sign that society is providing enough of an economy.

 

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

When they say "who would SAY THAT ?", do they agree or disagree with what was said?

They are dumbfounded.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes and I have to try to be empathetic to people who are not curious to the world around them, government, legal frameworks, social trends and so on.  I have come to accept that that kind of ignorance is a sign that society is providing enough of an economy.

 

They are dumbfounded.

You should recommend this place.

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes and I have to try to be empathetic to people who are not curious to the world around them, government, legal frameworks, social trends and so on.  I have come to accept that that kind of ignorance is a sign that society is providing enough of an economy.

You claim a position for yourself, Michael, wherein you reveal your own stunning hypocrisy. Not that I doubt your position on this specific issue, I see those same kinds of people myself, I experience this so I understand where you are coming from.

Nevertheless, you still highlight your stunning hypocrisy as one who is "not curious to the world around them, government, legal frameworks, social trends and so on". 

[Goddess]

14 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You claim a position for yourself, Michael, wherein you reveal your own stunning hypocrisy. Not that I doubt your position on this specific issue, I see those same kinds of people myself, I experience this so I understand where you are coming from.

Nevertheless, you still highlight your stunning hypocrisy as one who is "not curious to the world around them, government, legal frameworks, social trends and so on". 

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion of Bill 62, please avoid just making comments that accuse others of hypocrisy all the time.  Thank you.

[taxme]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

Well, it does.  How many gun owners go killing?

 

What do you think the violent protests happening are all about?  Violent clashes aren't "wars?" 

 

See? Socialist  policies  that's to blame, not the migrants.  If migrants are allowed to do as they please , why shouldn't they?

 

There's no unity when couples divorce.  Again, who do you blame, the institution of marriage? 

 

Laws or not, guns don't go off all by themselves. 

 

That's why you can't say it's religion's fault. 

 

 

 

 

I think that there is one thing we both can agree on? I blame all the world's problems on those puppet on a string politicians who seem to feel that they have all the answers for all the problems of the world. But how can they when they are the ones that created all the problems of the world in the first place. Instead of always listening to the globalist elite banksters and special interest groups that say and do things all behind our backs, and keep us truthfully informed on what they are doing with our money and lives, they should be listening to we the people.

We the people are not be the ones starting the wars and creating all the problems in the world. We the people must take back the power that belongs to us. But first it is we the people who must start to give a chit and get more involved. Sadly, the majority of we the people only want to wrap themselves up around materialistic objects rather than get involved. We the people allow the politically correct politicians to do the talking for us, and we all see as to where that has got us all?  Deeper in debt and wars. 

Religions can be blamed and are at fault for most of the past and present day world's problems. All religions have not yet reached the angel level just yet. They would much prefer to keep their mouths shut than be fed to the lions. That is my sermon for today. Now put your money in the collection plate. I need some money for dinner out tonight. Thank you.  

[betsy]

16 hours ago, taxme said:

I think that there is one thing we both can agree on? I blame all the world's problems on those puppet on a string politicians who seem to feel that they have all the answers for all the problems of the world. But how can they when they are the ones that created all the problems of the world in the first place. Instead of always listening to the globalist elite banksters and special interest groups that say and do things all behind our backs, and keep us truthfully informed on what they are doing with our money and lives, they should be listening to we the people.

We the people are not be the ones starting the wars and creating all the problems in the world. We the people must take back the power that belongs to us. But first it is we the people who must start to give a chit and get more involved. Sadly, the majority of we the people only want to wrap themselves up around materialistic objects rather than get involved. We the people allow the politically correct politicians to do the talking for us, and we all see as to where that has got us all?  Deeper in debt and wars. 

Religions can be blamed and are at fault for most of the past and present day world's problems. All religions have not yet reached the angel level just yet. They would much prefer to keep their mouths shut than be fed to the lions. That is my sermon for today. Now put your money in the collection plate. I need some money for dinner out tonight. Thank you.  

While religion can be the cause - depending on doctrines being taught - I don't think it's accurate to say sweepingly that it's therefore religion's fault . 

Like Christianity as an example.  True that there were, and there are still atrocities made in its name, however those are not the teachings of Christianity.  Either the people doing atrocities in its name are ignorant (and/or  had taken the teachings out of context), or they deliberately manipulated/edited the teachings to support their own agenda.  That African monster Joseph Kony - " leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a guerrilla group that formerly operated in Uganda" (Wikipedia)  - comes to mind.

 

It's the responsibilities of preachers to lead their flocks with the truths in the Scriptures, and Christians are warned to be wary of false teachings.  Preachers who mislead people have more to answer for in the Last Judgement.

 Though Christians are advised to turn the other cheek (ignoring insults), there is nothing in the Bible that forbids Christians from defending themselves against physical attacks.  In fact, Christians are advised to go to wars wisely, and there has to be a righteous reason for it.

 

Yes, we are under our leaders....thus we must keep praying for them that they may do what is righteous.  Godly rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.

 

In some places (like Africa)....it's more of tribal wars than religious.

 

 

Quote

 

Romans 12

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

 

If possible.....

so far as it depends on you.....

Sometimes, you're given no choice.

If you want to lead a safe, and peaceful existence, sometimes you can only achieve it by eliminating the continuous threat, once and for all. 

 

Survival comes naturally, and it is universal!  Atheists or Godly....doesn't matter.

If you're attacked, your natural inclination is to survive.  What more if lives and fate of others,  depend on you!  Especially those that can't defend themselves.  

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by betsy

[taxme]

8 hours ago, betsy said:

While religion can be the cause - depending on doctrines being taught - I don't think it's accurate to say sweepingly that it's therefore religion's fault . 

Like Christianity as an example.  True that there were, and there are still atrocities made in its name, however those are not the teachings of Christianity.  Either the people doing atrocities in its name are ignorant (and/or  had taken the teachings out of context), or they deliberately manipulated/edited the teachings to support their own agenda.  That African monster Joseph Kony - " leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a guerrilla group that formerly operated in Uganda" (Wikipedia)  - comes to mind.

 

It's the responsibilities of preachers to lead their flocks with the truths in the Scriptures, and Christians are warned to be wary of false teachings.  Preachers who mislead people have more to answer for in the Last Judgement.

 Though Christians are advised to turn the other cheek (ignoring insults), there is nothing in the Bible that forbids Christians from defending themselves against physical attacks.  In fact, Christians are advised to go to wars wisely, and there has to be a righteous reason for it.

 

Yes, we are under our leaders....thus we must keep praying for them that they may do what is righteous.  Godly rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.

 

In some places (like Africa)....it's more of tribal wars than religious.

 

 

If possible.....

so far as it depends on you.....

Sometimes, you're given no choice.

If you want to lead a safe, and peaceful existence, sometimes you can only achieve it by eliminating the continuous threat, once and for all. 

 

Survival comes naturally, and it is universal!  Atheists or Godly....doesn't matter.

If you're attacked, your natural inclination is to survive.  What more if lives and fate of others,  depend on you!  Especially those that can't defend themselves.  

 

When I start to see Christians stand up for their beliefs and are willing to even go to prison for their bible beliefs, then I will take Christians serious. When did you last see some Christian preacher go to jail in Canada for preaching God's words in church or out in the public square and condemn homosexuality as an example? From my understanding God despised homosexuality. Over. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, taxme said:

When I start to see Christians stand up for their beliefs and are willing to even go to prison for their bible beliefs, then I will take Christians serious. When did you last see some Christian preacher go to jail in Canada for preaching God's words in church or out in the public square and condemn homosexuality as an example? From my understanding God despised homosexuality. Over. 

There's a few on Google...

http://nationalpost.com/tag/linda-gibbons

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/convicted-pro-lifer-requests-letters-supporting-unborn-for-september-h

[taxme]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There's a few on Google...

http://nationalpost.com/tag/linda-gibbons

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/convicted-pro-lifer-requests-letters-supporting-unborn-for-september-h

One Christian here, and one Christian there that end up going to jail for their beliefs is good to see. But where are the rest of the thousands of Christians out there that should be out there with those Christians and backing them up. They can't jail thousands at one time. Yet we have heard of muslims preaching hatred towards non-muslims right here in Canada,  but yet I have not heard of any of them going to jail as far as I know. But it is good to see that some are willing to have themselves fed to the lions. There needs to be more of it. 

[betsy]

15 hours ago, taxme said:

When I start to see Christians stand up for their beliefs and are willing to even go to prison for their bible beliefs, then I will take Christians serious. When did you last see some Christian preacher go to jail in Canada for preaching God's words in church or out in the public square and condemn homosexuality as an example? From my understanding God despised homosexuality. Over. 

Human failings  doesn't make Christianity at fault.  That's the point.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by betsy

[OftenWrong]

On 25/10/2017 at 2:00 PM, eyeball said:

Then why doesn't this law specifically target Burkas, why does it rather ambiguously refer to face coverings? What is Quebec trying to hide?

Face covering makes sense if argued from a security point of view. Why should anyone be allowed to cover their face in public, in this day and age. I wouldn't mind if any form of face covering would be banned, as a misdemeanor lets say. Excluding situations where there is good reason to do so.

For example, if two guys wearing chicken suits enter a bank... that would be suspicious behaviour.
 

Edited October 28, 2017 by OftenWrong

[Argus]

On 10/18/2017 at 3:36 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Then they're all rabble. 

All Quebecers are rabble? You don't think that seems a trifle elitist, like the goateed petty bourgeois sneering at the crowds in the streets as he sips his champagne?

Edited October 28, 2017 by Argus