Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 50 minutes ago, Abies said: Bill 21 is not about misogyny in religion but about getting rid of minority religious groups from government positions and jobs. That includes Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and so on. No. It's about people in positions of authority having an appearance of neutrality so that everyone feels safe in society. Does it actually make people safer? I'm not sure, but it could, because it does send a strong message that religious nuttery should be kept separate from secular society. It sends the message that religious rights do not trump human rights, women's rights or society's rights. "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Cannucklehead Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 27 minutes ago, Goddess said: No. It's about people in positions of authority having an appearance of neutrality so that everyone feels safe in society. Does it actually make people safer? I'm not sure, but it could, because it does send a strong message that religious nuttery should be kept separate from secular society. It sends the message that religious rights do not trump human rights, women's rights or society's rights. No to mention the hyprocricy involved.
Abies Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Goddess said: No. It's about people in positions of authority having an appearance of neutrality so that everyone feels safe in society. Does it actually make people safer? I'm not sure, but it could, because it does send a strong message that religious nuttery should be kept separate from secular society. It sends the message that religious rights do not trump human rights, women's rights or society's rights. Religious rights are part of human rights. How does a man with a turban make someone feel unsafe, or an orthodox jew wearing his kippah, or a Muslim woman wearing her hijab? This bill has nothing to do with feeling safe or neutral it is about preventing people from following their faith. Edited October 25, 2019 by Abies 1
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 19 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said: No to mention the hyprocricy involved. https://globalnews.ca/news/5475505/quebec-national-assembly-crucifix-removed-july-2019/ Did you know about this? "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Cannucklehead Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 Just now, Goddess said: https://globalnews.ca/news/5475505/quebec-national-assembly-crucifix-removed-july-2019/ Did you know about this? Did you know the symbol on Quebec's flag, the Fleur de Lis is a religious symbol? Think they are going to give that up anytime soon? Or how about the arms of Canada? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis Hypocrisy at work in the 21st century.
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Abies said: Religious rights are part of human rights. How does a man with a turban make someone feel unsafe? This bill has nothing to do with feeling safe or neutral it is about preventing people from following their faith. That may be your perception. Canada is a secular country, you are free to follow any faith. Lots of jobs require a uniform or have a dress code, there's nothing sinister about it. "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said: Did you know the symbol on Quebec's flag, the Fleur de Lis is a religious symbol? Think they are going to give that up anytime soon? Or how about the arms of Canada? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis Hypocrisy at work in the 21st century. It always amazes me how apologists for religion will rant about something like this, while utterly ignoring and refusing to speak about the very real, very damaging, very hypocritical beliefs and symbols of certain religions. The fleur-de-lis offends you, but women being forced to wear blankets over their head everywhere they go, walking around like Handmaids is A-OK and deserves a place in our society. Weird. Edited October 25, 2019 by Goddess "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Cannucklehead Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, Goddess said: It always amazes me how apologists for religion will rant about something like this, while utterly ignoring and refusing to speak about the very real, very damaging, very hypocritical beliefs and symbols of certain religions. The fleur-de-lis offends you, but women being forced to wear blankets over their head everywhere they go, walking around like Handmaids is A-OK and deserves a place in our society. Weird. If they are forced then yes, I do not agree with that. If they wish to wear it then I dont see why they should not be allowed to.
Abies Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 16 minutes ago, Goddess said: That may be your perception. Canada is a secular country, you are free to follow any faith. Lots of jobs require a uniform or have a dress code, there's nothing sinister about it. And uniform and dress codes allow turbans, hijabs and kippahs because we allow people to observe their faiths. 1
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said: If they are forced then yes, I do not agree with that. If they wish to wear it then I dont see why they should not be allowed to. Sure. When they're not at a government job. "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Argus Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said: Did you know the symbol on Quebec's flag, the Fleur de Lis is a religious symbol? Think they are going to give that up anytime soon? Or how about the arms of Canada? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis Hypocrisy at work in the 21st century. We're not required to shun our entire past history, however much liberals hate it. The ban against these religious costumes is clearly designed to prevent immigrants from sticking to their old world, religious fanatic ways, to put the point across to them that this is a secular country and that if they want to fit in they have to adopt secular ways in public. All the liberals have this absolute confidence that all newcomers to Canada will integrate and abandon their old-world ways, if not immediately then by the second generation. But that doesn't work so well when you throw religion into the mix. Just ask the Hasidics in Montreal. They haven't changed one damn bit. But okay, there aren't that many of them, so no big deal. But there are a LOT of Muslims and Sikhs, and their numbers are growing exponentially. They, particularly the Muslims need to be pressured to abandon their religious cultures or we're going to have major violence from them in the future. The Sikhs, meanwhile, are as clannish as they were when they first arrived. We are growing foreign communities built on religious extremism in our midst. And if that means some people are irked too damn bad. Edited October 25, 2019 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Abies said: And uniform and dress codes allow turbans, hijabs and kippahs Not in Quebec. Not in France. Not in Belgium. Not in Denmark. Not in Austria. Quote because we allow people to observe their faiths. Yes. But there are other rights that come before religious rights. Edited October 25, 2019 by Goddess "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Cannucklehead Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Multiculturalism_Act Well I guess that's just toilet paper then. Also, i might add, it's quite ironic that quebecers have cried since 1774 about how their culture is so important and yet they are seeking to destroy others rights to theirs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, Argus said: And if that means some people are irked too damn bad. Even their "irks" are couched in dishonesty: 16 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said: If they are forced then yes, I do not agree with that "If" ..........Like women all over the world aren't being forced, killed, beaten, imprisoned, assaulted on the daily over this. "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said: Also, i might add, it's quite ironic that quebecers have cried since 1774 about how their culture is so important and yet they are seeking to destroy others rights to theirs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act Wow. If that's all it takes to "destroy" a religion is ban their headgear when they work in positions of authority, why haven't we done this sooner? "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Abies Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 11 minutes ago, Goddess said: Not in Quebec. Not in France. Not in Belgium. Not in Denmark. Not in Austria. Yes. But there are other rights that come before religious rights. Quebec isn’t a nation it is a province which used a law to quash people’s rights. We live in Canada what Belgium, Denmark and France do is irrelevant. What rights come first is also irrelevant they are all guaranteed under the charter.
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Abies said: Quebec isn’t a nation it is a province which used a law to quash people’s rights. We live in Canada what Belgium, Denmark and France do is irrelevant. What rights come first is also irrelevant they are all guaranteed under the charter. No they're not. Honor killing and FGM and lots of other ridiculous religious nonsense in the name of religion is not guaranteed in the charter. "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Cannucklehead Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Goddess said: No they're not. Honor killing and FGM and lots of other ridiculous religious nonsense in the name of religion is not guaranteed in the charter. Wasn't jesus the original honour killing?
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said: Wasn't jesus the original honour killing? I think it was Abel in that particular fable. Edited October 25, 2019 by Goddess "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Abies Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Goddess said: No they're not. Honor killing and FGM and lots of other ridiculous religious nonsense in the name of religion is not guaranteed in the charter. I never said those practices were guaranteed under the charter and I also fail to see how those things are relevant to the conversation. It would be bad faith to assume that defending ones right to practice their religion means allowing harm to others or breaking the law.
Cannucklehead Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Goddess said: I think it was Abel in that particular fable. That wasn't honour killing.
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Abies said: I never said those practices were guaranteed under the charter and I also fail to see how those things are relevant to the conversation. It would be bad faith to assume that defending ones right to practice their religion means allowing harm to others or breaking the law. Well, in secular countries religious abuse is being recognized more and more as being harmful to humans. I think it's difficult to argue that yarmulkes or turbans are harmful. Hijabs and burkas are harmful to women, children, men and society. Physically and psychologically, they are harmful. Edited October 25, 2019 by Goddess "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Cannucklehead Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 Probably not nearly as painful as a cilice.
Goddess Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said: Probably not nearly as painful as a cilice. Tell that to Aqsa Parvez. "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Abies Posted October 25, 2019 Report Posted October 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Goddess said: Well, in secular countries religious abuse is being recognized more and more as being harmful to humans. I think it's difficult to argument that yarmulkes or turbans are harmful. Hijabs and burkas are harmful to women, children, men and society. Physically and psychologically, they are harmful. Abuse can come in many forms. Singling out religion is ignoring other abuses such as Quebec’s abuse of it’s own citizens. Hijabs and burqas are harmful when forced onto women but that doesn’t mean every woman you meet wearing one is being forced to do so.
Recommended Posts