Your Agenda Insight: Faith in Secularism

[noobler9]

it's against my religion to give service to people who hide their face~ there, problem solved, no new law required

[Lavitzzz]

This guy doesn't seem to get what the goal of secularism actually is.... The examples he cited are laws removing religious PRIVILEGE.... Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion... I can't legally walk into a bank or government facility wearing a balaclava so muslims or whoever else that try to cover their entire face can't either.... This isn't a discrimination against religion, its about enforcing the law equally of every Canadian.

[Rockerman1928]

..."religious expression by informed adults..."

Best oxymoron of the day!

[todanp]

Covering the face is more cultural and less religious. It dates back to tribal culture. Can't use the religion card on this.

[DarthSchwartz]

canada should ban all religion.

[Forkroute]

@DarthSchwartz amen, it would be a heaven



[todanp]

@DarthSchwartz

I like this.

[TheFlameoftheWest]

I believe that France has gone to far by banning the Burqa in public, it infringes on the women's right to right to wear whatever she wants.

However I believe that Quebec has struck the right balance. They have simply reaffirmed the secular common law (well in there case it would be Civil Law) by not allowing exceptions in the law based on the citizen's religion or culture. If you want to receive public services we need to be able to identify you, simple as that.

[pendulousphallus]

Oh, Akaash. Love ya bro. Surprised that these laws snuck into Canada, even Quebec which can be a smidge nationalistic/rednecky. Atheist, but all about freedom of religion. Ironic that Quebec, the reason why we were so ahead of the curve on multi-culturalism is the reason why we're being fuck bags right now.

Thanks for summing it up so succinctly as always, Akaash. Here, have a heart, I picked it just for you. <3

[Deadmansparty2002]

A great look at the moral and legal question that we face as a society in this day and age. :)

[Forkroute]

Multicultural bullshit. If I call it "religion" then it should be protected? There is a border which religion should not pass. Oppression of woman is one of them, being identifiable is one of them.

[Deadmansparty2002]

@Forkroute How is religious oppression any different from your own apparent need to oppress the very religion you claim is oppressing women and/or identity? Because it's secular? That doesn't make it any more absolute then religious beliefs. In fact, in the way you present it you almost sound anti-religious. How is that better than being "anti-women"?

[arash3589]

@Deadmansparty2002 i'm not sure if i understand your point. but to me it is simple, it is about right and wrong. if anyone claims that people were made from dirt instead of being evolved in the face of the overwhelming evidence then i strongly think that "respecting" their "beliefs" is not only unscientific but even undemocratic and dangerous.

if any one told you they prefer to cure their sick child with mud rather than with medicine, would you respect their decision or call the child services?

[Deadmansparty2002]

@arash3589 Okay, then let me present the counter argument based on the same logic. If the government decreed that no one was allowed to wear cotton clothing (as an example only) and that anyone who wore cotton clothing must then go naked under certain circumstance, would you then go naked? How is that any more unscientific or undemocratic then your scenario?

[arash3589]

@Deadmansparty2002 good example. why did they ban the cotton clothing? is it harmful for people? does it cause cancer? or is it just not based of observable facts? is it just anti-cotton politics?

see for me my response would be hugely different based on how these questions are answered.

if the ban is based on political belief then i would fight against it. if it is based on facts i would accept it. what about you?

[Deadmansparty2002]

@arash3589 Well to use the example that is used by many who support the idea of banning the hijab, it's a security reason for banning cotton. In this scenario, cotton doesn't cause cancer, it's not harmful to people and there are no visible facts that this effects anyone, even the people wearing it in any way. But they've decided to ban it anyway for security reasons that can't be backed up by facts.

[Forkroute]

@Deadmansparty2002

You're oppressing me! How is that any better then when I oppress religion? Because it's you?

Such an idiotic politically self-refuting politically correct mindset. I'm anti-religious, unapologeticlly. Religion harms people, especially woman. Civilians have rights and duties, religion harms society.

[Deadmansparty2002]

@Forkroute I am not a religious person, but I agree with the video's author on the subject. In regards to what you say about religion harms people and society. Religion doesn't harm people, people harm people. It's the same reality that's involved in guns. Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill others. Blaming religion for anything is blaming people for being human beings.

[Forkroute]

@Deadmansparty2002 religious is a set of beliefs that motivates people to depress woman in our case and disobey law. Save me the stupid cliches.

[Deadmansparty2002]

@Forkroute There are any number of religions which do not oppress women or disobey the law. In fact, Christianity and/or Catholicism is the basis for our entire system of law in western society which you appear to hold in such high regard. Our laws against murder stem from the very basic "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Yes, there are a great number of religions which break that law, but there are also many secular people who do as well. That doesn't mean we should abolish our legal system.

[Forkroute]

@Deadmansparty2002 What are you talking about? FFS, go open a book about 18 century philosophy of politics.

[Deadmansparty2002]

@Forkroute Democracy and western philosophy (by which I include Western European countries) started long before the 18th century. More than that, even within the 18th century the amount of religious people in politics who helped form the legal basis that the way we live now, while I'm sure they did their best to be secular about it, the obvious influence of their religious beliefs is there.