- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I don’t believe in any religion, don’t like religion, but I also realize that it’s not the governments place to tell people what they can and can’t believe.
Besides that, given the specifics of this law it’s rather easy to see it’s not even about religion as a whole. It’s just more Islamophobia.
it’s not the governments place to tell people what they can and can’t believe
Right, which is why they are requiring schools that receive public funds to stop discriminating against students
It’s just more Islamophobia.
Also yes and we’ll work on that, but it prompted them into a sensible change.
Instead of feel-good measures like this, they should TAX mosques, churches, temples, prayer sheds, whatever. (it feels good to ME, anyway)
In USA, religions pay virtually nothing, with many more benefits than any secular charity or non-profit.
There’s a whole slew of non -profit orgs that would feel pain before religious ones were taxed at any reasonable level.
This does remove some direct funding, in the public funded orgs won’t have to set aside building space for religion. Students will also have access to different/closer/better schooling if the Catholic schools are not allowed to select students based on their religion, which is great and I don’t know how they were allowed to do that based on our Charter of freedoms
i imagine a situation where churches could keep non-profit status as long as they provided some tangible service to the community. homeless feedings and things like that. but there’s no universe in which a religious non-profit should get more privileges than a non-religious one
Can’t wait for the endless “end times near! look at this recent event” that are going made concerning this recent ruling. /s
Good, now ban religion altogether, preferably by recognising it as the mental illness that it so clearly is.
You can’t ban it, don’t be silly.
Do you really want THE STATE to have the power to ban belief systems?
What problem does this solve?
It tells religious freaks that we don’t have to live OUR lives based on THEIR delusions.
But you already didn’t have to live your life by them…
Of course we do, whenever the government bows to their ludicrous demands, which is ALWAYS. Despite the fact that the Constitutionally expressly forbids it, our nation’s culture and society have been crafted around Christianity, simply because these screwballs are so relentless, that lazy politicians (redundant) find it easier to give them what they want, than fight the endless culture war with them.
And since they don’t have to pay taxes, or account for their fraudulent fund-raising activities, they have plenty of money to buy politicians to influence the government to favor them.
The Constitution’s official stand on religion is Atheism. We need to enforce that.
By denying them theirs?
The lack of oppression, there are people who got too comfortable with the illusion of power. Hence, they have to generate misery while they still can.
No, I think is more absurd. They look at the US and overcorrect. There’s a reasonable middle ground where a grey area in processing works itself out after a few generations. That is totally skipped with this volatile approach.
Something something France light.
Also related but isn’t Canada super immigrant dense anyway? If you ignored the architecture, you could genuinely confuse some areas for South Asia lol.
2021 census has us at 23% immigrants, so ya its a lot.
Interesting to see so many comments defending religion, especially one particular religion. Anyway, IMO religion should be always a private matter. If you don’t like certain rules or laws, nobody is preventing you to leave and be happy somewhere else. So, if a Christian is not happy in a Muslim country due to restrictions, the person can move to a Christian or secular country. If a Muslim is not happy in a basically Christian or secular country, there are many Muslim countries, which will allow him or her to follow the rules of the religion. So, everybody is happy. Hence, what is the deal here?
“Just give up your home, job, and family and likely become a refugee if you don’t agree with the prevailing religion. What’s the big deal?”
“Abortion is illegal now because it’s unchristian. If you are not a devout Christian, move.”
Your opinion is a bit of a paradox, isn’t it? If religion was always a private matter you wouldn’t be able to go to any country and tell what religion that country is.
Part of the problem is that a few religions tell their followers that they own specific land, so they are competing to have exclusivity of that land instead of just going somewhere else.
The expansion of civilisations has always encroached on religions as well. You basically have to choose a point in time to say “starting now religions are allowed to exist in the countries they are already in.” Should the aboriginal Australians just go somewhere else if they don’t like the multicultural/multi-religiousness of modern Australia? What about native Americans if they don’t like capitalist Jesus?
“If you are a minority, specifically one that has to pray 5 times throughout the day, you don’t get university anymore.”
- Fr*nce.
Ah yes. Quebec, France
Quebec isn’t in France but given that the only other country I hear about laws like this from is France, it’s still hard not to see it as a French culture thing (specifically a tendency to pass secularism laws that barely affect Christians but have larger implications for people of other religions.)
Canada is fr*nch in my eyes.
Fuck religion but fuck stupid laws like this. Seriously this is just as stupid as the age verification stuff everyone he is mad about.
People have the right to do their rituals if it makes them feel good…
Not only that, but if you want to end religion, causing people to think their religion is under attack from the outside is the best way to isolate everyone in that religion and make them far more likely to stay in that religion for life.
Religion is cancer. Every and any.
Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one. When it’s used to harm non-believers especially it’s really easy to see this.
I wouldn’t give Christians or any other religion a pass on this, so I’m not giving Atheists one either.
No, it’s not.
Not watching football isn’t a “football stance”.
Not eating pork chops isn’t a “pork chop stance”.
Not drinking jagermeister isn’t a “jagermeister stance”.
Not reading Spider-Man comics isn’t a “Spider-Man stance”.
Not being religious isn’t a “religious stance”.
Not doing something isn’t a stance on that something, that’s goofy
d’awww. Look who thinks they know stuff
So cute
Nobody has hurt more people than religion. They long ago lost any benefit of the doubt. We don’t have to be polite, or give them any power, because we’ve seen what they will do with it, every single fucking time.
So, No, fuck those religious whack jobs, we shouldn’t have to live OUR lives, based on THEIR delusions.
Start by taxing, and regulating, churches.
Get back to me when there are “discussion rooms” for practising atheists in public spaces 😆
If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. Whatever your belief of lack of it, I want to see you respected and treated well.
Wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion.
Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it might be a duck.
Good thing your opinion means jack shit, because your basis is fundamentally flawed and incorrect.
Do you think it shows weakness to be polite to those you disagree with? I think it works better to approach people with respect if I want them to consider what I’m saying. It already feels like an attack when someone says you’re wrong, and I don’t want to harden minds against what I think is right.
I’m not always good at it, and I have spoken to people harshly often. It never produced anything but hard feelings on their part. I think it can be satisfying to be mean, and I was looking for an excuse to act in a way that’s less moral without feeling bad about myself. I think even if I was right, I usually didn’t need to be mean about it.
I think that it’s likely nothing I’m doing on this website is important enough to justify me being unkind about it.
Wasn’t the Supreme Court supposed to give its verdict on this? So either the court said nothing or the QC government just passed it anyway.
As an atheist, albeit an American one, I believe that we should restrict all worship and prayer to the privacy of one’s home, exclusively.
“The State’s jackboot is oppression…unless it is wearing my preferred socks!”
The problem behind this logic is that you will eventually have to contend with identity politics because without a visible structure for worship, people will inevitably begin to organise in secret and decentralise. Decentralised religion is worse and that’s how you create cults like the Nation of Islam and Klu Klux Klan who have nothing to do with the religions they originate from.
Then, there is the problem that every human is influenced by a set of beliefs or experiences that they are exposed to growing up. If they see and observe that the government is the sole power of the realm, then they will be incentivised to pursue and claim that seat of power if given the opportunity arises, and doing so knowingly means they are beholden to no law or people beneath their station.
Fuck them homeless people right?
There wont be homeless people if only atheists existed
There are enough of us that if we cared to we could solve it. We don’t.
The main problem is amoguses that support our enemies out of ignorance
I just don’t think that being right makes you more moral or compassionate. Those are separate vectors, there’s no useful kind/religious axis we can map here.
Putting aside how dumb of a statement that is, will the state be mandating homes and forcing people into them? If they have to do that just to accommodate my private beliefs, how is that different than a prayer room in public? Should I be arrested if I’m homeless by choice or want to live out of a tent in the woods?
Just skip the argument to state enforced atheism and don’t pretend this line of thought is rational and secular.
Nobody told you about forcing someone to become atheist. I don’t want to waste time on such stupid people like you. Blocked
Most homeless have mental health problems, its not really an issue of acquiring a house but them ripping out the pipes to buy drugs.
so, anti-freedom then? I can understand not allowing proselytizing, but this reads to me like de facto anti-muslim legislation.
If you ban all other public speech trying to sell me on anything, I might get behind it. Targeting religion specifically is a bit sus.
If it disproportionately targets Muslims then you could also argue that they disproportionately use public spaces to practice their religion.
Even an Islamic country like Uzbekistan is cracking down on stuff like this out of fear for radicalism: https://asiaplus.news/en/2023/09/18/uzbekistan-authorities-tighten-measures-against-beard-and-hijab-wearing/
The West is way too naive about the growing influence of Islam in its politics and institutions. The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in most of the Middle East. Europe is just now starting to wake up to the threat of this insidious group.
So places of worship are illegal too?
Lemmy “leftists” out here defending religion at any cost
I don’t hate random people believing in their religion, I hate people using religion as an excuse to force laws that oppress minorities.
Sounds like an idea that will be presented in Reason’s Great Moments in Unintended Consequences in few years.
Who tf does this help
The Quebec right wing, which paradoxically is secular and pro abortion.
Secularism? As long as it’s applied across the board - including Christians and others - this seems sensible.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
That’s what this law does, it specifically targets Muslims who need to pray during the day while pretending to be for everyone.
In some ways it will protect Muslim children as well, not being exposed to crucifixes and requiring Catholic schools to accept Muslim students.
Also, it could give the children a choice to engage in religious practices. Private religious schools should not exist at all, they are a tool for indoctrination and separating children from those with different beliefs is abusive.
That said, the PQ are racists and their goal actually is to discriminate against Muslims.
This isn’t even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That’s the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don’t agree with theirs?
That’s no better than forced conversions…
Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others. That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism. So yeah maybe this would be for the best.
Let’s recap.
Literally, what I said was this:
This isn’t even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That’s the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
And you said this:
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
And now you’re trying to backtrack by claiming this:
I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.
No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn’t just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, “ending religions,” in your words).
The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally “institutions forcing their beliefs on others.” So, no, you’re just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.
Also,
In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn’t plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things “reality and science,” or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?
For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?
Who gets to determine what constitutes “science and reality,” and what constitutes “religion and belief,” particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?
Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined “reality”? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.
How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where “reality” can’t be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?
Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I’m not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you. A wall of text arguing semantics… you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity? Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
I’m also pretty confident that doubts and theories in science are unrelated to mysticism. If only in intents.
I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
That is your personal belief. You are advocating to force it onto others who do not share it. How is that different from forced conversion?
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
It would be sensible. But what’s the benefit?
Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things…
I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms.
And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons.
Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you’re overlooking the good that’s been done.
I don’t think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion.
Religions do call for a lot of violence don’t get me wrong. I’d even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion.
But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example.
Antisemitism doesn’t happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current “mostly chill” status does not negate the past suffering.
And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church.
The population?
It stops public praying as a virtue. When praying is only done in private you can’t judge people being a worse Christian etc for not participating.
So you’ll have a more secular society with more room for people to practice their religion as they see fit. Not doing things just because it’s expected of you.
Like if there’s prayer room at a school. More people will use it because they don’t want to be seen as a bad Muslim. Even if they wouldn’t normally pray at those times.
It creates pressures and expectations.
Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private.
Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe?
There is no logic to this person’s stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance.
If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It’s functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval.
