Thread: Religious neutrality and public officials Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020333
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
The Quebec National Assembly yesterday passed a new law, stating that people must have their faces uncovered when receiving or delivering government services. It is widely interpreted as a government ban on Muslim women wearing the Niqab.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/burqa-niqab-national-assembly-quebec-liberal-government-stephanie-vallee-1.4357463
When I was in seminary, I disagreed with one of my professors on the issue of public officials wearing religious clothing. He stated, that any religious clothing is a violation of state neutrality which would include: wearing a crucifix, wearing a turban, wearing a hijab.
I objected because interpreting it this way would mean denying employment in the public service to Sikh men for example, because their religion requires them to wear a turban, a gross violation IMHO of minority rights.
What do others think?
[ 20. October 2017, 05:34: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
When I was in seminary, I disagreed with one of my professors on the issue of public officials wearing religious clothing. He stated, that any religious clothing is a violation of state neutrality which would include: wearing a crucifix, wearing a turban, wearing a hijab.
This is clearly discriminatory in favour of Protestants and members of other religions that don't require public display of religious symbols.
Also, if you think wearing a religious symbol violates state neutrality doesn't being a religious believer violate state neutrality? Is the insinuation that religious believers are incapable of impartiality in administering their public duties? (Some are apparently, true.) The logical upshot is that religious believers are told they are not welcome in public official space.
(As a side note, does 'religious clothing' include orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs?)
[ 20. October 2017, 07:24: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think this is quite difficult.
The first point is that people should be allowed to make religious decisions about clothing that the rest of us think are stupid. We might not like the idea of women walking around hidden from view, but providing they've freely chosen to do that* the rest of us should shut up and butt out. Because the alternative is that other people can stick their oar in and tell me what I can and can't do, think, believe. And I'm not having that.
But leading on from the first point, there are times when one's spiritual awakening and conscience position has consequences. And one can't shy away from those. You might think that your conscience is telling you that you absolutely must carry a large wooden cross at all times. Not my problem, bully for you. But there might be consequences of that which mean that you have to sacrifice other things in your life that you might have otherwise done. You are probably not going to be able to be a policeman if you are an anarchist who disputes the very nature of law. Meh, that's the natural consequence of your belief.
But, third, society does have to be clear about the reasons that there might be for exclusion and does have to think hard about the consequences. A woman wearing a form of head covering might not be an appropriate person for a range of customer facing roles in a way that there is no problem for a Sikh wearing a turban - simply due to the fact that the face is covered. So there might be legitimate reasons for saying that the hypothetical Sikh is able to do more things than the hypothetical veil-wearing woman. But again, these do have to be legitimate and explained rather than stupid and random.
And fourth, I'd have thought that there is a contradiction anyway if the point of the restriction is about a heightened sense of personal modesty. It would be silly to say "oh I'm going to wear this clothing to keep my face from being seen by men" and then go out of your way to get a job where you've got to talk to a lot of men.
* which of course is a difficult thing for anyone else to determine
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Haha, welcome to the French world of laïcité.
Here are few AIUI things about ECHR rulings as interpreted in France:
- Legislation properly based on allowing a person to be identified gets a pass ("we live in the Republic with our faces visible"); legislation based on religious discrimination doesn't.
- Religious symbols are allowed, but not if they constitute a form of pressure to conform or convert.
That said, there is a lot of discrimination in practice. A women's prison I know refused access to a headscarf-wearing Muslim chaplain but regularly lets in its Catholic nuns in full garb.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I have friends who dress up as Spiderman and/or Star Wars stormtroopers. That I should then go on to object to a woman wearing a niqab would be problematic.
(eta)
It's not that seeing someone's face isn't important, but accountability is more important. Ensuring that an ID tag is correctly in place so that I can say who gave me service is what I need. Mainly because I'm properly face-blind.
[ 20. October 2017, 07:47: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
Perhaps it's fair to point out that it is not a religious requirement for Moslem women to cover their faces; it's customary in some Moslem societies - though certainly not in all - for them to do so, but neither the Koran nor the Hadith require it, the only stipulation being that women should dress 'modestly' in public, which seems reasonable enough. Sikh men on the other hand are required by their religion to wear a turban, so there's an important distinction there. If anything, St. Paul is more prescriptive about women's dress than Islam ever is!
Do I want to deal with someone whose face is covered or even partly covered? No, I don't, which is why I don't want to talk to a man wearing a motorcycle helmet or a woman wearing mirror sunglasses either. It's a question of comfort, not of religion, though some people want to make it so.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It can be a question of safety, too.
Sikh inmates can wear turbans in most circumstances, but they're not getting their ritual daggers in, any more than registered practitioners of the Jedi religion get to bring in light sabers.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Do I want to deal with someone whose face is covered or even partly covered? No, I don't, which is why I don't want to talk to a man wearing a motorcycle helmet or a woman wearing mirror sunglasses either. It's a question of comfort, not of religion, though some people want to make it so.
That's quite a tough distinction to make though.
A person might say "I refuse to accept medication from a Roman Catholic" and then say that they're not going to be treated by a crucifix-wearing doctor, nurse or pharmacist.
Or one might have racist views about the cleanliness of Sikhs etc.
It seems to me that if there are reasons to exclude people from certain jobs, they have to be more than because x number of people don't really like the idea of dealing with a public official with their face covered.
And it doesn't matter at all whether face-covering is a "requirement" or not. The fact is that the woman in question thinks it is a requirement for her.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It can be a question of safety, too.
Sikh inmates can wear turbans in most circumstances, but they're not getting their ritual daggers in, any more than registered practitioners of the Jedi religion get to bring in light sabers.
Sikhs have an exclusion from the normal requirement to wear a helmet whilst driving a motorcycle in the UK (no idea whether this is a thing elsewhere). Sometimes they have road accidents and die as a result.
Similarly I believe there are some loosening of other requirements to wear safety headwear on building sites.
I'm not sure how to parse this.
[ 20. October 2017, 08:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Also it must be the case that a large number of public interactions with public officials are now via the phone, email or instant message.
Is anyone here claiming that those people shouldn't have their faces covered either?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm not sure about "discriminatory in favour of Protestants" but when I get into these discussions I marvel at the extent to which understanding the grace aspect of the Gospel really does set people free from legalism.
In the prison context with which I'm familiar so much time and energy is expended trying to accommodate various religious requirements in terms of diet, clothing, sacred objects, and so on. Even the Catholics keep getting into trouble for referring to our shared worship space as a "chapel" and leaving postcards of the Virgin in it.
By contrast, give Protestants a Bible and we can adapt to just about anything - which is so much less annoying and time-consuming for the authorities.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Similarly I believe there are some loosening of other requirements to wear safety headwear on building sites.
It's a requirement for employers to make sure that all employees follow HSE rules on PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), and it's normally a sackable offence to be caught not complying, since the HSE will come down (pun alert) like a ton of bricks on an employer where the rules are not enforced.
But there is a specific exemption for the employers in the case of turban-wearing Sikhs. They cannot insist the man wears a hard hat. That is all: the rest of the PPE has to be worn.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But there is a specific exemption for the employers in the case of turban-wearing Sikhs. They cannot insist the man wears a hard hat. That is all: the rest of the PPE has to be worn.
Presumably if there was a Sikh death on a building site due to the lack of a hard hat, the employer wouldn't be liable.
I'm not sure why the other PPE is relevant to this..
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
IMHO, people covering their faces, whether for religious or other reasons is of a different order from wearing clothes that self-identify a person as belonging to a religious or other group. In a public space, yet alone giving or receiving government services, the rest of us are entitled to know with whom we are sharing that space.
Most Moslem women round here who wear Moslem dress, do not wear a form of it that includes a face veil.
I would not disagree with a requirement that motorcyclists be required to remove their helmets and vizors except when actually riding their motorcycles, or that limited the wearing of sunglasses and face masks and forbade wearing certain types of hood except when it is raining.
I also agree that Sikh's should not be allowed their knives in prison.
However, covering the face and Sikh knives in prison are special cases. Beyond that, people should be entitled to self-identify as belonging to a religious or other group whether by clothes or symbols, anywhere, including when giving or receiving government services.
If a person objects to being treated by a nurse wearing a crucifix, a star of David, Goth earrings or whatever, then let them forgo their treatment. The nurse's right to express or not to express his or her identity is a great as the patient's.
That's what I think, anyway.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO, people covering their faces, whether for religious or other reasons is of a different order from wearing clothes that self-identify a person as belonging to a religious or other group. In a public space, yet alone giving or receiving government services, the rest of us are entitled to know with whom we are sharing that space.
Why? Why is your requirement to see someone's face more important than someone else's conscience position that they need to wear it?
quote:
Most Moslem women round here who wear Moslem dress, do not wear a form of it that includes a face veil.
Again, that's irrelevant. If there was only one woman who felt her conscience saying that she needs to wear a face veil it wouldn't matter if every other Muslim in the world disagreed with her.
quote:
I would not disagree with a requirement that motorcyclists be required to remove their helmets and vizors except when actually riding their motorcycles, or that limited the wearing of sunglasses and face masks and forbade wearing certain types of hood except when it is raining.
OOOkaay.
quote:
I also agree that Sikh's should not be allowed their knives in prison.
Not sure anyone is saying otherwise.
quote:
However, covering the face and Sikh knives in prison are special cases.
I've not seen any reasoning from you as to why the face covering is a special case. You just seem to be arguing it is because you don't like it.
Meh. I don't like tattoos, so what? Why should I then have special dibs on saying whether someone who is working in the library has tattoos?
quote:
Beyond that, people should be entitled to self-identify as belonging to a religious or other group whether by clothes or symbols, anywhere, including when giving or receiving government services.
If a person objects to being treated by a nurse wearing a crucifix, a star of David, Goth earrings or whatever, then let them forgo their treatment. The nurse's right to express or not to express his or her identity is a great as the patient's.
That's what I think, anyway.
This all seems extremely muddled.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It seems to me that we Brits have had this conversation before (several times in fact).
The Quakers refused to take off their hats in court and refused to use honorifics. They even, *shock horror*, refused to participate in the state marriage requirements.
There was societal disgust and shock. Then the authorities tried to bully them into submission. When that didn't work, they tried exclusion. When that didn't work, they tried forcing them to leave the country.
And then, eventually, when all of that didn't work, the law was changed. And it turned out that the requirement to take off a hat in court and the requirement to swear oaths, and the requirement to get married in church etc and so on wasn't actually that important. And that including Quakers and their weird ways actually added to society rather than subtracting.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Eutychus: quote:
I'm not sure about "discriminatory in favour of Protestants" but when I get into these discussions I marvel at the extent to which understanding the grace aspect of the Gospel really does set people free from legalism.
Well, yes, that's just peachy for those of us who have been set free from legalism. That doesn't give us the right to cause our brothers and sisters to stumble. Or to look down our noses at people who genuinely believe that their immortal souls are in peril if they take their turbans off/allow a man to see their face/forget to put on their crucifix one morning. Grace is a gift, not something we have achieved through our own efforts; we haven't done anything amazing by accepting it.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
<time to edit message elapsed>
Eutychus: quote:
By contrast, give Protestants a Bible and we can adapt to just about anything - which is so much less annoying and time-consuming for the authorities.
Charles I would beg to differ. And when did 'being less annoying and time-consuming for the authorities' become a requirement for a follower of Christ?
[ 20. October 2017, 10:25: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
That doesn't give us the right to cause our brothers and sisters to stumble. Or to look down our noses at people who genuinely believe that their immortal souls are in peril if they take their turbans off/allow a man to see their face/forget to put on their crucifix one morning. Grace is a gift, not something we have achieved through our own efforts; we haven't done anything amazing by accepting it.
Thanks for the sermon ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Another great thing about understanding the gospel of grace is the vast swath of teaching it opens up about respecting others' beliefs and matters of conscience. I still firmly believe, with plenty of experience to back my conviction up, that protestantism has a few aces in its had when it comes to dealing with the authorities in this respect - on behalf of all faiths and none.
Of course not being a bother to authorities is not a requirement of faith or applicable everywhere, but Acts talks about not putting any unnecessary obstacles in the way of faith and that's fine by me.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I've tried to trim this down a bit to prevent this post getting too long.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... Why? Why is your requirement to see someone's face more important than someone else's conscience position that they need to wear it?
Apart from Moslem women who go about fully veiled, one is entitled to assume that the only reason why a person might mask their face in public is to conceal their identity, for which the normal motive is so as to commit a crime without being identified. Even apart from the philosophical point that in the public space, our fellow citizens are entitled to know who we are, the scope pretending to be a veiled Moslem woman gives to criminals would a good enough reason on its own to ban self-concealment. ....
quote:
...Again, that's irrelevant. If there was only one woman who felt her conscience saying that she needs to wear a face veil it wouldn't matter if every other Muslim in the world disagreed with her.
I don't agree. Conscience is important but 'my personal private conscience' as something that caps all, demolishes all, is a thoroughly unattractive and untenable argument. I'm a Protestant, but that's Protestantism gone mad.
To have a claim on our heartstrings, conscience has to have some objective validity measured in the context of those who have a relatively similar world view. If many strict Moslem women clearly do not take the view that they will be eternally damned unless they cover the front part of their faces, then it's reasonable for society to take the line that insisting on covering the face at all times is a form of passive aggression rather than conscience. ...
quote:
This all seems extremely muddled.
Perhaps it would help if I distill the principles here more explicitly.
As a general principle people should have a strong right to express or not to express their identities. There should be a presumption that that right should prevail. The burden of overturning or limiting it should be high and based on objective arguments.
That somebody else is offended is almost never a sufficient reason. That somebody else might be offended never is. Not liking tattoos isn't sufficient - though I don't like tattoos either.
There are cases where safety, public security or public decency might be.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Face coverings make lip reading really hard.
For those who hear well, there is no non-verbal communication with a masked face. I find this more difficult to deal with in the few situations in which I have interacted.
Like any other right, should the right to religious expression have limits? If it makes someone else uncomfortable or disturbs them, is this of any importance? On a glaring example of self expression and rights, there are many videos of "open carry" gun people going into public space carrying rifles and handguns in the USA. Most other countries have restricted this. Most places we are also not allowed to be naked in public. I realize niqabs are suggested to be religious, but is this so? Or is it like RC tonsure unessential?
So, are face coverings a requirement of a religion, are they a cultural expression, and how oppressive is it to not allow them? While there are women who say they choose to wear them, is this representative of the group or do face coverings represent a male requirement for women? Why is there no male equivalent; Muslim women who wear niqabs (I see no burkas here) are identifiable, but the men who accompany them are not by manner of dress identifiable. Why? When I see pictures from Islamic countries men do wear cultural dress often.
I am not staking out any of this as my position. But I am asking questions. There is a large difference between hats and similar, and full masked faces.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
The Québec law has almost nothing to do with religious neutrality and, in its efforts to make that argument, is as mockable as anything Donald Trump might do.
It was introduced by the Couillard cabinet to undermine a political push on the right by the Coalition Avenir Québec, a conservative nationalist party. There is a provincial election in the offing and, with the division of the leftwing and separatist parties (three at last count), this is the main threat to the government's majority. CAQ has received support from a nativist element and this measure is hoped by the Liberals to stop the growth (and electoral impact) of these voters-- the federal Conservative "Canadian values" campaign reaped electoral rewards in several Québec seats at the last election and likely led to the defeat of many NDP MPs.
The law has little to do with officials serving the public, and is aimed at citizens engaging with the public sector, particularly veiled Muslim women. Muslims in Québec are notoriously un-fundamentalist and I would be surprised if the number of veiled women exceeded a few hundred. The practical challenges of verifying identity are minimal-- federal and Ontario officials I know tell me that a space out of public view is set aside and woman officials carry out the identification.
While I don't particularly like the niqab-- I find it dreadful-- it was in Grade X that I first learned it was none of my business what others wear.
Shipmates may or may not be interested in that in Ontario, the neighbouring province, the three parties united against the Québec law. In the meanwhile, the Mayor of Montréal has said that he will not enforce it at the municipal level, and the bus drivers' union (as buses are a public service under the law) has said that their members will not enforce it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Apart from Moslem women who go about fully veiled, one is entitled to assume that the only reason why a person might mask their face in public is to conceal their identity, for which the normal motive is so as to commit a crime without being identified.
Well, that's just bollocks. Spiderman fights crime. He just wants to keep his identity secret.
And more seriously (though the above point is still serious) you have absolutely no idea who you're sharing a public space with at pretty much any time, unless you live on a small island or in a hamlet. Until we're compelled to have augmented reality tags floating above our heads, stating our names and identity numbers, I'd rather be anonymous, thank you.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
As explained by the ministers involved, a veiled woman would not be able to teach in a school, nor be a doctor or nurse -- nor indeed, go to a hospital or receive care from a doctor or nurse. Such a woman would not be able to board a bus or subway. One minister did indeed say that those wearing sunglasses would have to remove them before receiving services.
Unintended consequence -- in the middle of a Canadian winter, bus drivers will have to require that all persons wearing scarves or balaclava masks against the cold must remove them before entering the bus.
John
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
part from Moslem women who go about fully veiled, one is entitled to assume that the only reason why a person might mask their face in public is to conceal their identity, for which the normal motive is so as to commit a crime without being identified.
I take it that you don't ride a motorbike.
The fact is that people commonly move around with their faces covered in our society for a number of reasons. Not all of them are related to crime.
quote:
Even apart from the philosophical point that in the public space, our fellow citizens are entitled to know who we are, the scope pretending to be a veiled Moslem woman gives to criminals would a good enough reason on its own to ban self-concealment. ....
That's ridiculous.
A Muslim women can prove her identity if she needs to just like I can prove my identity if someone lawfully needs to know it.
Most of the time nobody needs to know who I am.
quote:
quote:
...Again, that's irrelevant. If there was only one woman who felt her conscience saying that she needs to wear a face veil it wouldn't matter if every other Muslim in the world disagreed with her.
I don't agree. Conscience is important but 'my personal private conscience' as something that caps all, demolishes all, is a thoroughly unattractive and untenable argument. I'm a Protestant, but that's Protestantism gone mad.
But why is it? Why is this mad? Why shouldn't someone do something with respect to clothing for a reason you don't agree with?
I don't think you've shown any reasoning here whatsoever.
quote:
To have a claim on our heartstrings, conscience has to have some objective validity measured in the context of those who have a relatively similar world view. If many strict Moslem women clearly do not take the view that they will be eternally damned unless they cover the front part of their faces, then it's reasonable for society to take the line that insisting on covering the face at all times is a form of passive aggression rather than conscience. ...
Is it? So how many women have to want to cover themselves before you give them the right to self-expression of their religion as they see it?
It's not about your heartstrings, it is about the way that the white, male majority seek to determine what other people do - in this case a dark-skinned Muslim woman.
For no reason other than that you aren't used to it.
quote:
Perhaps it would help if I distill the principles here more explicitly.
As a general principle people should have a strong right to express or not to express their identities. There should be a presumption that that right should prevail. The burden of overturning or limiting it should be high and based on objective arguments.
That somebody else is offended is almost never a sufficient reason. That somebody else might be offended never is. Not liking tattoos isn't sufficient - though I don't like tattoos either.
There are cases where safety, public security or public decency might be.
OK so explain to me in short words exactly how a woman wearing a face veil is more of a public security issue than a man (or anyone) wearing a motorcycle helmet.
Don't assume that I know your argument; make it. Otherwise we can't actually have a debate.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As explained by the ministers involved, a veiled woman would not be able to teach in a school, nor be a doctor or nurse -- nor indeed, go to a hospital or receive care from a doctor or nurse.
Whilst I understand the former, I don't understand the latter. Why can't a veiled woman get treatment from a doctor?
If the doctor is female, there is no issue at all.
quote:
Such a woman would not be able to board a bus or subway. One minister did indeed say that those wearing sunglasses would have to remove them before receiving services.
Riiiight.
quote:
Unintended consequence -- in the middle of a Canadian winter, bus drivers will have to require that all persons wearing scarves or balaclava masks against the cold must remove them before entering the bus.
John
And then presumably this stupid situation will be back to the real target: Muslim women. Other people will get a pass even though their faces are covered in other ways.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
notoriously un-fundamentalist
That could be sig-worthy.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Interesting Aleut re grade X. This is the grade in which they actually recruited a barber and lined us up at school for haircuts. Also forbidden were jeans and t-shirts. There was a short debate if the shirts with collars had be long or short sleeved. Not long after, white socks were forbidden as was carrying a package which resembled a Canadian 25 pack of smokes in your shirt pocket. Such rebels we were. We all aspired to look like [url=http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/history-matters-who-remembers-humphrey-and-the-dumptrucks]these guys[/ur].
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Haha, welcome to the French world of laïcité.
Here are few AIUI things about ECHR rulings as interpreted in France:
- Legislation properly based on allowing a person to be identified gets a pass ("we live in the Republic with our faces visible"); legislation based on religious discrimination doesn't.
- Religious symbols are allowed, but not if they constitute a form of pressure to conform or convert.
That said, there is a lot of discrimination in practice. A women's prison I know refused access to a headscarf-wearing Muslim chaplain but regularly lets in its Catholic nuns in full garb.
And in Quebec, the double standards are quite blatant. The National Assembly has consistently refused to remove the Crufifix that hangs above the Speaker's chair, even as they pass laws targeting Muslim headgear in the name of secularism.
Other than that, what the Aleut said.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Eutychus: quote:
Thanks for the sermon
You're welcome. It seems to be catching:
quote:
Another great thing about understanding the gospel of grace is the vast swath of teaching it opens up about respecting others' beliefs and matters of conscience. I still firmly believe, with plenty of experience to back my conviction up, that protestantism has a few aces in its had when it comes to dealing with the authorities in this respect - on behalf of all faiths and none.
And we were all expected to deduce that from your other post?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I have dry skin which is sensitive to the cold - I live in the Thames Valley, so it rarely gets that cold, but if the wind is very chilly it can make my face very sore. In winter I often wear a scarf wrapped around my mouth as well as a hat with ear flaps to try and protect my skin. It's pretty blatant that this ruling is about Islamophobia - me in my winter hat and scarf is as covered up as someone in a niqab, yet strangely enough nobody gets worked up about it. If I found a cosy winter niqab (I'm sure some must exist) I would be treated totally differently, which is ridiculous because no more skin is actually covered.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
People generally take their scarves, hoods, toques etc when they come indoors. They certainly do when they are talking to others inside.
I've no idea if niqab wearers decide to show their face when having a serious conversation with others. I hope there is some decision making on this. I am progressively becoming more hard of hearing, it is an issue.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Here is the proposed bill.
What is strikingly contradictory is on the one hand, the bill claims the State is secular and neutral, but when it comes to the crucifix in the National Assembly, the state's "religious and cultural heritage" must be respected.
I don't understand why Quebec is insistent on the crucifix in the National Assembly, church attendance is minimal in the State, and half the time, Quebec politicians bemoans the evils of the Roman Catholic Church in its cooperation with the right wing Bourassa regime to predate the Quiet Revolution in the 1970s.
Besides the fact, if we take into account that there were people living in what we know of as Quebec before European settlement and colonialisation, First Nations' spirituality would have a stronger claim to the heritage of the land, then Catholicism, try 10,000 years or so of practice, compared to a measly few centuries.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Brat wrote:
quote:
I don't understand why Quebec is insistent on the crucifix in the National Assembly, church attendance is minimal in the State, and half the time, Quebec politicians bemoans the evils of the Roman Catholic Church in its cooperation with the right wing Bourassa regime to predate the Quiet Revolution in the 1970s.
But, earlier abortion legalization and lower church-attendance aside, 83% of Quebeckers still identify as Roman Catholic.
Charitably, it's possible that many in Quebec still see RCism as a part of the province's heritage that needs to be remembered.
Less charitably, they might just see ancestral or nominal Catholicsm as a dividing line between legitimate Quebeckers and everyone else. "Yeah yeah, we know Catholicism is all a bunch of BS, but we're still gonna keep that crucifix up just so everyone knows who the boss is around here."
(And I think you mean Duplessis, not Bourassa, and the 1960s was the decade of the Quiet Revolution.)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And we were all expected to deduce that from your other post?
I stand by what I said, which was in response to the jibe that the legislation was skewed in favour of protestantism.
It would be more accurate to say that protestantism is skewed in favour of legislation that in theory allows all religions a level playing field in public space. Indeed laïcité in France was originally in no small part a protestant idea.
As I and others have already pointed out, legislation in this area is often applied hypocritically; just how depends a lot on the prevailing traditional religion where you are. The ECHR seems to have quite a good track record on spotting hypocrisy in this area, though.
All that said, I still affirm that one of the really positive characteristics of Christianity which protestantism largely helped rediscover is its adaptability to all cultures and its focus on what goes on inside us as opposed to outward appearances.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
^^ Sorry if I sound a little cynical about Quebec, but I do not think I have ever met one person in my life who loudly demanded the continuation of Christian religious displays by government, while simultaneously being able to make a convincing case that he truly cared about liberal values.
[ 20. October 2017, 17:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I take it that you don't ride a motorbike.
The fact is that people commonly move around with their faces covered in our society for a number of reasons.
And banks, jewellers, and similar places all have little signs instructing you to remove your motorcycle helmet before you enter the premises. The safety argument would seem to be the same - perhaps the woman in the niqab is a bank robber - but she has a counter-argument based on her religious freedom that the motorcyclist doesn't have. So it's not immediately obvious that the societal compromise has to land in the same place in both cases (not is it obvious that it doesn't.)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And banks, jewellers, and similar places all have little signs instructing you to remove your motorcycle helmet before you enter the premises. The safety argument would seem to be the same - perhaps the woman in the niqab is a bank robber - but she has a counter-argument based on her religious freedom that the motorcyclist doesn't have. So it's not immediately obvious that the societal compromise has to land in the same place in both cases (not is it obvious that it doesn't.)
OK, so she can't go to banks that aren't run by women.
But clearly this is not about the general safety or security problem caused covered faces, which are a normal part of our society.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
All that said, I still affirm that one of the really positive characteristics of Christianity which protestantism largely helped rediscover is its adaptability to all cultures and its focus on what goes on inside us as opposed to outward appearances.
It is admittedly a long time since I worked in a prison, but I'd have thought that forms of Christianity which have more requirements than simply having a bible are easier for inmates to maintain.
Because prison is a structured environment. And it is hard to have the self-discipline to do something relatively unstructured (or at least self-directed) in an environment where everything else is structured by an outside force.
I'd be very surprised if religious inmates didn't become more outwardly religious in prison.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Point of clarification A Hijab does not cover the face and should be okay under the Quebec law. However, a Niqab, which partially covers the face would probably not be okay. A Burqa would also not be okay.
While the Quebec National Assembly has passed the law it remains to be seen how the courts will deal with the law.
I would just point out that under the US Constitution, the First Amendment, such a law would be unconstitutional under the freedom of religion clause and probably under the freedom of speech clause too since that would be a protected expression.
To force a secular law on a particular expression people of faith is not religious neutrality in my book. It amounts to tyranny.
I think some French Courts have ruled against such laws in their country.
[ 20. October 2017, 17:55: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
I'm guessing some people here have heard of the philosopher Charles Taylor, who writes about politics and religion and whatnot. He also wrote a report on "reasonable accomadation" in Quebec a few years back, with Gerard Bouchard, a sociologist.
They are both scathing about the Quebec government's new law.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
While the Quebec National Assembly has passed the law it remains to be seen how the courts will deal with the law.
I can almost guarantee it will be overturned as a Charter violation.
The only thing the Quebec government could do is invoke Section 33 of the Charter, which allows governments to overrule Charter-based court rulings. There is an unofficial taboo against doing this in Canada, though it has happened on occassion.
But I doubt that the government really cares if the law survives or not, since their main purpose is likely just showing the voters how much they care about secularism/feminism/Quebec's values/kicking around foreigners/whatever it is you think they care about.
In fact, if the law does get overturned, it'll probably just be another useful prop for the nationalists' melodrama about how Quebec is always being humiliated by the rest of the country.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd be very surprised if religious inmates didn't become more outwardly religious in prison.
That is by and large true. But the fact remains that where I am at least, the protestant chaplaincy is the one that doesn't regularly raise audible sighs about food arrangements or specific days for worship, etc.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think some French Courts have ruled against such laws in their country.
As I said earlier, in France we live in the Republic with our faces visible.* That is the text of the French Act of October 11, 2010, it applies to public space, and it has not been overturned.
==
* The wording resembles 2 Corinthians and as such could legitimately be translated "we live in the Republic with unveiled faces..."
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And we were all expected to deduce that from your other post?
I stand by what I said, which was in response to the jibe that the legislation was skewed in favour of protestantism.
I didn't mean it as a jibe. I meant it as a serious point. If it is a jibe at all then it's a jibe against secularism (at least, the sort of secularism that passes such a law) rather than against protestantism.
As it happens I am a protestant (Anglican communion). And I do think that God looks on the heart and that outward modes of dress are unimportant. But as a liberal I don't think the state ought to impose that belief on other religions. In any case, first they'll come for the Muslims, etc.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... The fact is that people commonly move around with their faces covered in our society for a number of reasons. Not all of them are related to crime.
Apart from the one Pomona's given, I can't think of any others that are valid.
... quote:
A Muslim women can prove her identity if she needs to just like I can prove my identity if someone lawfully needs to know it.
Most of the time nobody needs to know who I am.
Clearly you aren't. But I'm persuaded by the French position that Eutychus cites quote:
"in France we live in the Republic with our faces visible".
Even if you personally wouldn't reach that conclusion, I don't think it's possible to argue that that is outside the range of positions that a civilised state can reasonably reach.
... quote:
I don't think you've shown any reasoning here whatsoever.
No Mr Cheesy. The fact that you don't agree with my reasoning does not mean I haven't produced any.
... quote:
It's not about your heartstrings, it is about the way that the white, male majority seek to determine what other people do - in this case a dark-skinned Muslim woman.
No. This has nothing to do with race. There are plenty of Muslims in the world who are white. Admittedly, I don't think many Bosnian women wear veils, but there must be quite a lot of Arabs who do, and I've no idea what happens in central Asia. And most "dark-skinned Muslim women" (your phrase) do not.
... quote:
OK so explain to me in short words exactly how a woman wearing a face veil is more of a public security issue than a man (or anyone) wearing a motorcycle helmet.
I've already said that I think it would be reasonable to require motorcyclists to remove their helmets and visors except when actually riding their motorcycles. You might well not support that, but I would.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
quote:
As I said earlier, in France we live in the Republic with our faces visible.* That is the text of the French Act of October 11, 2010, it applies to public space, and it has not been overturned.
I stand corrected, though I note Amnesty International has condemned the law for the very reason I stated.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As explained by the ministers involved, a veiled woman would not be able to teach in a school, nor be a doctor or nurse -- nor indeed, go to a hospital or receive care from a doctor or nurse.
Whilst I understand the former, I don't understand the latter. Why can't a veiled woman get treatment from a doctor?
If the doctor is female, there is no issue at all.
Because a veiled woman is forbidden to receive any service that falls under the general rubric of a government service. SO she may not be treated by a doctor or nurse if veiled. It has nothing to do with her beliefs or practices -- which indeed allow her to receive medical care from a woman. But this law denies her the right to ask for such services.
John
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... The fact is that people commonly move around with their faces covered in our society for a number of reasons. Not all of them are related to crime.
Apart from the one Pomona's given, I can't think of any others that are valid.
And this is exactly the point. No one made you the arbiter of what is valid and what is not.
If someone is not doing harm, then they should be left alone.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
First, a quick clarification to a couple of earlier posters who have talked about the 'State' of Quebec. It isn't a State, it's a Province (and a very fine one too!) and Canada is neither part of France nor - thank God! - part of the United States. I know that everybody 'knows' these things, but they do tend to slip out of mind when people are posting.
I see that Justin Trudeau has come out clearly in favour of not telling women (or anyone else, I suppose) what to wear, and I think that in general terms - with exceptions for motorcycle helmets in banks, for instance - this makes a great deal of sense.
But personally I don't feel comfortable in a face-to-face conversation with people who hide their faces. That may be my problem, possibly influenced by mild face-blindness, but then I wouldn't feel comfortable holding a conversation with someone with safety-pins through their nose either. In both cases I would avoid the situation as far as possible. Is that wrong of me? Does it make me some sort of closet racist?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It would be more accurate to say that protestantism is skewed in favour of legislation that in theory allows all religions a level playing field in public space.
Bullshit. Protestant religious persecution of others is well documented. Protestant religious persecution of other protestants is also well documented.
And Protestant plainness is just as much a sign and a fetish as any other religious symbol.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
But personally I don't feel comfortable in a face-to-face conversation with people who hide their faces. That may be my problem, possibly influenced by mild face-blindness, but then I wouldn't feel comfortable holding a conversation with someone with safety-pins through their nose either. In both cases I would avoid the situation as far as possible. Is that wrong of me? Does it make me some sort of closet racist?
If so, I'm one too. If I talk to someone whose face is covered, I don't feel I am having a personal interaction with that individual.
The exception to this would be talking to a friend who has a scarf over her face because it is bitter cold.
Moo
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It would be more accurate to say that protestantism is skewed in favour of legislation that in theory allows all religions a level playing field in public space.
Bullshit. Protestant religious persecution of others is well documented. Protestant religious persecution of other protestants is also well documented.
And Protestant plainness is just as much a sign and a fetish as any other religious symbol.
Bullshit yourself.
None of what you allege, even if true, detracts from what I said, and Buddhists are hardly above reproach either. I'm taking part at an interfaith ceremony next week in my city at the Buddhist centre and could tell a lot of stories about the infighting there too, as relayed to me by my Buddhist opposite number on the interfaith committee on which I serve (huge arguments about the correct posture for the buddha in the worship space, etc.).
Of course iconoclasm can be a fetish too. That doesn't invalidate the fact that protestant piety can be flexible in a way many other creeds find difficult, nor does it detract from the fact that, based as it is on freedom of individual conscience, laïcité and other secular forms of government owe a lot to protestant thought.
[ 21. October 2017, 11:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If many strict Moslem women clearly do not take the view that they will be eternally damned unless they cover the front part of their faces, then it's reasonable for society to take the line that insisting on covering the face at all times is a form of passive aggression rather than conscience.
That's a bit like saying that since strict Protestants and strict Catholics don't generally abstain from meat during Advent, strict Orthodox who do so abstain must be doing so to be passive aggressive.
That said ...
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If someone is not doing harm, then they should be left alone.
I agree in principle, but what if someone with their face covered wanders into a shop covered by CCTV? Presumably the CCTV is there because the shopkeeper feels the ability to capture people's appearances is necessary for the prevention of crime, in which case the niqab and the motorcycle helmet are preventing that aim, and therefore causing harm to the shopkeeper.
(I am open to the view that the shopkeeper's opinion may be mistaken - but then I am not a shopkeeper ...)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Perhaps Protestantism in France has developed a mediatory role by positioning itself between the culturally dominant RCC and the feared Muslims, and benefiting from its image as the 'reasonable' religious voice in a highly secular culture.
But I'm not sure that Protestantism elsewhere can necessarily play the same part. It depends on the national context, for example the strength of the RCC versus that of the Protestants, and the extent to which governments feel obliged to 'manage' their Muslim population.
In the British case, ISTM that the weakness of almost all denominations combined with a hands-off multiculturalism (although the latter has become less fashionable) probably makes it harder for British Protestant groups to position themselves as the voice of all religious communities here.
At most, there's an expectation in some quarters is that the CofE as the state church can fulfill this role.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I agree in principle, but what if someone with their face covered wanders into a shop covered by CCTV? Presumably the CCTV is there because the shopkeeper feels the ability to capture people's appearances is necessary for the prevention of crime, in which case the niqab and the motorcycle helmet are preventing that aim, and therefore causing harm to the shopkeeper.
I am willing to consider this possibility once the statistics are in confirming that there is an epidemic of niqab-wearing shoplifters and armed robbers.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Really, what percentage of Muslim women in Quebec are we talking about here?
I used to live in a university town with a large Muslim population, many Saudis, and I don't remember ever seeing more than one or two women in niqab.
To me this law is totally symbolic --a " safe" microaggression aimed at Muslims while not actually affecting many of them at all. It's petulant and childish.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I agree in principle, but what if someone with their face covered wanders into a shop covered by CCTV? Presumably the CCTV is there because the shopkeeper feels the ability to capture people's appearances is necessary for the prevention of crime, in which case the niqab and the motorcycle helmet are preventing that aim, and therefore causing harm to the shopkeeper.
I am willing to consider this possibility once the statistics are in confirming that there is an epidemic of niqab-wearing shoplifters and armed robbers.
Well funnily enough I don't believe the statistics would show anything of the sort, but that wasn't the test you were using. The test you were using was whether something causes harm.
There have been instances of robberies committed using burqas (such as here - I admit I can't find any examples using a niqab). On the whole I would say the damage caused to religious freedom by banning Islamic face covering is greater than the harm caused by wearing them*, but then we're talking about weighing different degrees of harm, not harm versus no harm.
* And I'm also open to the possibility that CCTV in a shop with facial recognition good enough to be used as evidence in court (as opposed to just giving the coppers a lead) is an infringement of civil liberties and anything that harms it is a good thing.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
To me this law is totally symbolic --a " safe" microaggression aimed at Muslims while not actually affecting many of them at all. It's petulant and childish.
Agree.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well funnily enough I don't believe the statistics would show anything of the sort, but that wasn't the test you were using. The test you were using was whether something causes harm.
There have been instances of robberies committed using burqas (such as here - I admit I can't find any examples using a niqab). On the whole I would say the damage caused to religious freedom by banning Islamic face covering is greater than the harm caused by wearing them*, but then we're talking about weighing different degrees of harm, not harm versus no harm.
If I'm a shopkeeper and someone wearing a niqab/burka walks in, I'm not being harmed. Absolutely no harm has accrued to me at all. None. Zero.
The same harm as if someone not wearing a niqab walks in, in fact.
The harm is if they have previously decided to steal from me and are now carrying out their nefarious plans - like those non-Muslim non-women you link to. But the harm there is in the armed robbery, not in the burka. And clearly, since they were all banged up for a good long stretch, much good did it do them.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
The harm resides in the fact that the effectiveness of CCTV as a means of catching them afterwards has been impeded, which in turn harms the effectiveness of CCTV as a deterrent.
As I say, I think this is a less significant harm than the harm that would be caused to religious freedom by banning the niqab or the burqa.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Really, what percentage of Muslim women in Quebec are we talking about here?
I used to live in a university town with a large Muslim population, many Saudis, and I don't remember ever seeing more than one or two women in niqab.
To me this law is totally symbolic --a " safe" microaggression aimed at Muslims while not actually affecting many of them at all. It's petulant and childish.
I am in Montréal about once a month. I use public transit and I tend to frequent the louche and artistic parts of town, which overlap with the areas occupied by students and immigrants.
While many young women wear a headscarf, I do not know if I have seen a dozen women in niqab or burka in that period-- and there are likely about 250,000 Muslims in the Montréal area (221,000 in 2011). In Ottawa, I have seen women in niqab twice in the past year.
My Montréal friends tell me that most of hijabi women are Canadian-born or -raised from North African families. They tell me that the majority of young Muslim women will not wear a headscarf unless, I am told, they are feminists. The use of the hijab is much debated among younger women.
As an anecdote, an Antillaise friend who had her scarf wrapped well about her head last winter told me that she experienced far fewer catcalls and importunities when young men mistook her for an observant Muslim.
In any case, the law addresses a phantom menace, and is a solution desperately looking for a problem. Or, as I think, is an embarrassing and transparent political ploy. I note that there are no enforcement or punitive provisions in the law.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
None of what you allege, even if true, detracts from what I said,
Actually, that is correct. IF no context is added. The history of Protestantism being no better on average than RCC would indicate it has no claim to being special either.
quote:
and Buddhists are hardly above reproach either.
Really? "I know you are, but what am I?"
I'll paraphrase myself and repeat a consistent theme of mine: Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion. Any religion or philosophy will be fucked up by some of its adherents. That none are proof against this, should give us pause.
quote:
Of course iconoclasm can be a fetish too. That doesn't invalidate the fact that protestant piety can be flexible in a way many other creeds find difficult, nor does it detract from the fact that, based as it is on freedom of individual conscience, laïcité and other secular forms of government owe a lot to protestant thought.
Protestantism varies greatly across its subsects; anything from pretty much Catholic without a pope to almost freakin' atheist. So ascribing anything beyond Not RCC or Orthodox to protestantism is off the mark.
Svitlana's assessment is far closer to the bullseye.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps Protestantism in France has developed a mediatory role by positioning itself between the culturally dominant RCC and the feared Muslims, and benefiting from its image as the 'reasonable' religious voice in a highly secular culture.
We humans have a tendency to assign our preferred cause to unrelated effects.
The sectarianism in your statement, Eutychus, is part of the reason there is a problem to mediate.
[ 21. October 2017, 16:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I live in a university town. I can think of just three Muslim women here who wear a niqab and maybe two who wear a burqa.
What I do find, though, is among the Muslim families who do become permanent residents, while the mothers may wear traditional head coverings, many of the daughters have chosen not to wear head coverings--a few do, but not many. By the third generation, none of the teenagers are wearing head coverings.
My wife and I have hosted two young Muslim women in our home. One was from Kashmir, the other from Oman. Neither of them wore head coverings while they lived with us, not that we would have cared.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
All that said, I still affirm that one of the really positive characteristics of Christianity which protestantism largely helped rediscover is its adaptability to all cultures and its focus on what goes on inside us as opposed to outward appearances.
Bullshit. Example: when Protestantism came to Alaska after the Purchase, they forced native people to give up their modes of dress, eating, raising their children, commemorating the dead, etc. The Orthodox before them had not done so, because they actually adapted to the culture. The Protestants destroyed it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure about "discriminatory in favour of Protestants" but when I get into these discussions I marvel at the extent to which understanding the grace aspect of the Gospel really does set people free from legalism.
I wouldn't mind Protestants being set free from legalism if they weren't so god-damned self-congratulatory about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Apart from Moslem women who go about fully veiled, one is entitled to assume that the only reason why a person might mask their face in public is to conceal their identity, for which the normal motive is so as to commit a crime without being identified.
Bulldoubleshit. I wear my sunglasses because full daylight hurts my eyes. I'm blown away that nothing like this ever occurred to you.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Like any other right, should the right to religious expression have limits? If it makes someone else uncomfortable or disturbs them, is this of any importance? On a glaring example of self expression and rights, there are many videos of "open carry" gun people going into public space carrying rifles and handguns in the USA. Most other countries have restricted this.
Unless I'm extremely mistaken, covered faces are not deadly weapons. This is an inept comparison.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even apart from the philosophical point that in the public space, our fellow citizens are entitled to know who we are, [/QB]
Don't be silly. Every day I see and pass by hundreds of strangers. I have a right to know who they are? Dear God, no.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think you've shown any reasoning here whatsoever.
No Mr Cheesy. The fact that you don't agree with my reasoning does not mean I haven't produced any.
True. Cheesy's disagreeing with you doesn't prove the fact that you haven't. It's caused by it.
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
But personally I don't feel comfortable in a face-to-face conversation with people who hide their faces. That may be my problem, possibly influenced by mild face-blindness, but then I wouldn't feel comfortable holding a conversation with someone with safety-pins through their nose either. In both cases I would avoid the situation as far as possible. Is that wrong of me? Does it make me some sort of closet racist?
The question is whether you'd impose your dislike on others, or rather force them by law to not make you uncomfortable?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.
This too is sig-worthy.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure about "discriminatory in favour of Protestants" but when I get into these discussions I marvel at the extent to which understanding the grace aspect of the Gospel really does set people free from legalism.
I wouldn't mind Protestants being set free from legalism if they weren't so god-damned self-congratulatory about it.
It isn't even true. It might be that one or two subsects actually follow this, but many do not. They get round "legalism" by adding divine grace, but still include a rule or two.
Stating Protestant Brand X isn't legalistic might work, but generic protestantism fails the test.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure about "discriminatory in favour of Protestants" but when I get into these discussions I marvel at the extent to which understanding the grace aspect of the Gospel really does set people free from legalism.
I wouldn't mind Protestants being set free from legalism if they weren't so god-damned self-congratulatory about it.
It isn't even true. It might be that one or two subsects actually follow this, but many do not. They get round "legalism" by adding divine grace, but still include a rule or two.
Stating Protestant Brand X isn't legalistic might work, but generic protestantism fails the test.
Just because your average Protestant would be shunned or disfellowshipped if they smoked / drank / played cards / voted Democrat / came out as Gay doesn't mean they're legalistic. It means something else. Damned if I could say what though.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Hmm.
A kind of 'no true Scotsman' argument seems to have come into play, i.e you can't really be an average Protestant unless you are an aggressive, exclusive bigot.
Now you can certainly find aggressive, exclusive, bigoted people in Protestant churches, indeed I've met more than a few. I'm not convinced that it is an inevitable consequence of Protestantism.
There's a good line from Simon and Garfunkel's song 'The Boxer' which I've always found helpful in considering why you find aggressive, exclusive, behaviour in church communities.
quote:
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
It's tough if the disregarding man happens to have got into a leadership position, of course.
But I have some sympathy with mousethief's ' Damned if I could say what though'. Some people seem to have this enormous blind spot about agape love, to which all Christians are called to live by, to follow the way of love. It's the antidote to bigotry and hate, this love which does not insist on its own way, which crosses cultural boundaries, which is essentially generous and kind. How does it get lost? That puzzles me as well
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Followers of this arcane thread might be interested to learn that the University of Québec in the Outouais, the regional transit authority (STO), and the bus-drivers' union have said that they will not enforce the law.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hmm.
A kind of 'no true Scotsman' argument seems to have come into play, i.e you can't really be an average Protestant unless you are an aggressive, exclusive bigot.
Not at all what I am saying, not even close.
Eutychus is applying attributes to Protestantism that do not fit. They have the potential to fit a subsect, but not all protestants, for the very same reason that no particular attribute fits all Scotsman.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Freedom of conscience is pretty much one of the bottom lines of protestantism, and freedom from the Old Testament Law through grace is another. Of course many protestants fail to grasp that, but that's where it all started for Luther at least.
Mousethief, I'm in Kiev this coming week as the guest of a senior cleric of your church, and this won't be the first time I've experienced Orthodox hospitality and generous-heartedness, all whilst asserting, gracefully, the specifics of protestantism. All I can say is, I'm glad my knowledge of Orthodoxen isn't confined to their most vocal elements on here.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ lilBuddha
I was quoting mousethief.
But I'm not sure what you mean by generic Protestantism. I'm not sure there is such a thing. Protestantism is more a constellation of theological understandings, arising out of the Reformation.
[ 21. October 2017, 18:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
All I can say is, I'm glad my knowledge of Orthodoxen isn't confined to their most vocal elements on here.
no points for subtly, but at least one for staying within the rules.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm a fast learner.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ lilBuddha
I was quoting mousethief.
But I'm not sure what you mean by generic Protestantism. I'm not sure there is such a thing. Protestantism is more a constellation of theological understandings, arising out of the Reformation.
One of my points. Generic Protestantism is where Eutychus started this tangent, so blame him.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps Protestantism in France has developed a mediatory role by positioning itself between the culturally dominant RCC and the feared Muslims, and benefiting from its image as the 'reasonable' religious voice in a highly secular culture.
We humans have a tendency to assign our preferred cause to unrelated effects.
The sectarianism in your statement, Eutychus, is part of the reason there is a problem to mediate.
You were quoting from me there, not Eutychus.
I don't understand why you think the status of one religious group in a community is an 'unrelated' factor in the status of the others. It's a fairly well-known sociological (or even just historical) idea. You don't have to be RC to agree that in many places the RCC has influenced the religious environment in which other faith groups either grow or decline.
French Protestantism exists in a particular context. At the turn of the 20th c. French Protestants were keen supporters and indeed architects of France's secularity (laïcité), and I imagine that this continues to some degree, hence my reference to French Protestant 'reasonableness'. Considering their history of oppression in that traditionally RC country, it's hardly surprising. But around the world (e.g. in the USA) Protestantism exists in a range of different environments so it won't always serve that particular purpose.
FWIW, I'm ambivalent about French Protestantism's traditional identification with laïcité. To my mind it's risky, because it undermines the movement's long term viability from a religious perspective. The numbers of traditional Protestants have shrunk.
'New' French Protestants are now frequently more evangelical and less attracted to French secular values. If they want to become culturally acceptable - and useful - they'll have to change; but if they want to continue growing they'll probably have to resist assimilation.
[ 21. October 2017, 20:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Freedom of conscience is pretty much one of the bottom lines of protestantism, and freedom from the Old Testament Law through grace is another. Of course many protestants fail to grasp that, but that's where it all started for Luther at least.
Luther's been dead a long time.
I am also nonplussed, to put it gently, that Protestants of a certain stripe assume that only they believe in Grace, and all other Christians don't.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You were quoting from me there, not Eutychus.
I was using your quote to make a point to Eutychus. My comments were addressed to him.
quote:
I don't understand why you think the status of one religious group in a community is an 'unrelated' factor in the status of the others.
And I am not sure where you get the idea that I do.
quote:
French Protestantism exists in a particular context.
And it is context that puts it in the position it occupies. From my POV, its relative lack of power and oppression in modern times are more factors than any spiritual superiority.
Y'all can fight over who is better, but reality suggests factors other than religious play a major role here.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Mousethief, I'm in Kiev this coming week as the guest of a senior cleric of your church, and this won't be the first time I've experienced Orthodox hospitality and generous-heartedness, all whilst asserting, gracefully, the specifics of protestantism. All I can say is, I'm glad my knowledge of Orthodoxen isn't confined to their most vocal elements on here.
Cut to the quick, I am. I've had enough people tell me the exact opposite that I know whence this comes, and what it's worth.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't understand why you think the status of one religious group in a community is an 'unrelated' factor in the status of the others.
And I am not sure where you get the idea that I do.
You said this:
We humans have a tendency to assign our preferred cause to unrelated effects.
However, my post wasn't referring to 'unrelated effects'.
quote:
Y'all can fight over who is better, but reality suggests factors other than religious play a major role here.
Not sure if I'm included in 'y'all', since I wasn't referring to 'who is better'. (Perhaps Eutychus is doing so.)
OTOH, one could reasonably argue that if a religion has certain internal theological qualities it's likely to be 'better', i.e. more successful, in certain environments. So theology isn't irrelevant. The question is whether the theology and the environment in question mesh together effectively.
For example, one traditional trait of Reformed Protestantism was the importance it gave to theological understanding. Right belief was important to salvation, and therefore biblical and doctrinal instruction had to be up to the task. The clergy had to be carefully trained so they could train their people.
Conversely, the RCC was far less concerned with how much understanding its people had, because submission to the Church and its rites were a much higher priority.
It seems obvious that a greater regard for lay learning was going to provide a secular advantage for Reformed Protestants. And I think the possible theological origins of the Protestant work ethic have been subjected to research.
The RCC is 'better' in other respects, though.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You said this:
We humans have a tendency to assign our preferred cause to unrelated effects.
However, my post wasn't referring to 'unrelated effects'.
OK. But, again, that was aimed at Eutychus.
quote:
OTOH, one could reasonably argue that if a religion has certain internal theological qualities it's likely to be 'better', i.e. more successful, in certain environments.
History more directly points to political conditions and alignments causing religions to flower or fade.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
ISTM that history points to a range of contributing factors, really.
It's interesting that historians of religion sometimes posit the decline of Christianity in the West as a problem of internal religious change before it became a problem of external secularisation.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Followers of this arcane thread might be interested to learn that the University of Québec in the Outouais, the regional transit authority (STO), and the bus-drivers' union have said that they will not enforce the law.
Of course. This is just another one of those damp-squib windups that are a Québec specialty, all the way back to the Jesuit Estates Act.
With all this talk of Religious Neutrality in Québec, I am sometimes tempted to don my Huguenot Cross* and righteously declare "Toujours Ici!"**
*French Protestantism is a small world. The United Church of Canada is the Calvinist church in Québec.
**Still Here, or Always Here.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.
This too is sig-worthy. [/QB]
In much the same way as Guns don't kill people ...
Religion is MORE fucked up than we are. Its evils being a synergy of ours.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Religion is MORE fucked up than we are. Its evils being a synergy of ours.
A more realistic assessment of that might run - "We are entirely fucked up as a species, and rather than face up to our own stupidities, we project them on externalities and other people."
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Freedom of conscience is pretty much one of the bottom lines of protestantism, and freedom from the Old Testament Law through grace is another. Of course many protestants fail to grasp that, but that's where it all started for Luther at least.
I think you are counter-posing a theoretical Protestantism against actual Protestantism.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Religion is MORE fucked up than we are. Its evils being a synergy of ours.
A more realistic assessment of that might run - "We are entirely fucked up as a species, and rather than face up to our own stupidities, we project them on externalities and other people."
Aye. That's evolution for you: Can't be helped. There's no condemnation in it. Especially by God who is responsible.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
There was a potentially interesting discussion in your earlier post, but I didn't think this was your intention. This latest confirms it. It was merely another entry in the Martin60 epic poem of nihilistic despair: God the Killer
“Come, children, let us all intone drearily together:
I’m fucked up
You’re fucked up
We are ALL fucked up
God the Killer
the World is fucked up
the Universe is fucked up
the MULTIverse is fucked up
God the Killer
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Most droll. Your are eliding 50 years there lilBuddha.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I agree with Svitlana that the RC church in the past was less concerned about its faithful being aware of all the intricacies of doctrine and more concerned with outward submission to the Church.
However ,if as she maintains that Reformed Protestants claimed that 'right belief is essential to salvation' then it stands to reason that they also were very concerned with 'submission to the church and its rites'
Those who,having read the religious texts in the Bible and who had come to different conclusions from the dominant parties would be obliged to leave the fellowship of the community and found another one of their own.This is why in Scotland we have the Church of Scotland,the Free church of Scotland,the Free Church of Scotland (continuing),the United Free Church of Scotland,the Free Prebyterian Church of Scotland,the Associated Presbyterian Churches and no doubt others.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I agree with Svitlana that the RC church in the past was less concerned about its faithful being aware of all the intricacies of doctrine and more concerned with outward submission to the Church.
However ,if as she maintains that Reformed Protestants claimed that 'right belief is essential to salvation' then it stands to reason that they also were very concerned with 'submission to the church and its rites'.
Those who, having read the religious texts in the Bible and who had come to different conclusions from the dominant parties would be obliged to leave the fellowship of the community and found another one of their own.
Obviously, if correct teaching is important then you have to attend a church that teaches correctly. Since every man has to be the judge of this for himself, the result is that he may have to change churches, or start his own new church. That's what happens in Protestantism.
RCs seem to put more faith in the church as institution than in the specific quality of its teachings. IOW, respect for the church as institution precedes respect for the teachings.
These days, however, the historical Protestant churches and the RCC may be more alike, since both both are trying to emphasise the importance of discipleship and Bible study; both are also far more tolerant of diverse theological beliefs and ways of life among their members than would have been the case 150+ years ago.
Going back to 'public officials', their respect is for institutions rather than for religious beliefs, so groups that want to gain official approval and respect must, ISTM, emphasise the aspects of their heritage that the secular state and the wider non-religious public will admire, and tone down those that might lead to friction. But doing that creates problems of its own.
[ 25. October 2017, 15:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Most droll. Your are eliding 50 years there lilBuddha.
The ingredients give information as to how the cake was made, but the taste is what one remembers.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Indeed. In my approaching two decades sojourn here I have championed God the Killer for most of that time. As far all of creation being f..... well that's creation for you. Especially when it does pain and mind. But that is transcended, we hope.
Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on
:
I worked in a hospital for 10 years or so. Every employee was required to wear a photo ID card. It could be worn on a relatively short lanyard around the neck, or clipped to one’s shirt collar or chest level pocket. The thinking being that (a) people tend to remember faces better than names, and (b) the patient could match the face on the card to the person providing care.
Staff had to identify any patient by two distinct identifiers before giving care (despite the fact that the patient had a scanable barcoded wrist bracelet -- we knew those would be swapped by clever patients.), so too the patient could identify the person providing the care. So a ban on anything impeding visual identification, as noted in the OP, makes sense to me.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
So a ban on anything impeding visual identification, as noted in the OP, makes sense to me.
Yeah, but the law in question isn't called An Act To Foster Easy Identification. It's called An Act To Foster Adherence To State Religious Neutrality etc. This coming from a government that refuses to remove the crucifix hanging above the speaker's chair in the National Assembly.
An interesting aspect of the religious-accomadation debate in Quebec is how the proferred rationales for restricting religious garments vary depending on who is speaking. Somtimes, the restrictions are defended in the name of secularism, sometimes in the name of feminism, sometimes in the name of easy identification, sometimes in the name of protecting Quebec's traditional culture etc.
But if, for example, it's all about secularism, then there is no need to bring up facial identification, since the law should also ban religious trappings that don't block one's view of the face.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I have never been to Quebec and know little of the situation there.It is possible that the crucifix which is sometimes mentioned is indeed simply a cultural item telling about the religious past of the province. If this crucifix should be removed to protect religious neutrality of the state,what about paintings of a religious nature in the art galleries of the province ? (Am I wrong in assuming that there are state sponsored art galleries in Quebec?) I don't know what the flag of Quebec looks like,but if it is anything like the flag of the French city of St-Malo from where a number of Quebekers stemmed then there will be a cross on it.Would that affect religious neutrality ?
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But if, for example, it's all about secularism, then there is no need to bring up facial identification, since the law should also ban religious trappings that don't block one's view of the face.
Speculation about the motives of Quebec's politicians I'll leave to those who follow Canadian politics.
Seems to me that you're right that there are two separate issues here.
One is about religious symbols in a State that aims to be neutral to religion.
A starting point might be that people in ordinary jobs - bus drivers and doctors and tax collectors - can usually wear a religious symbol that has meaning to their life outside of work without it getting in the way of doing their job. But if you're a judge, or in some other role where both impartiality - the setting on one side of private beliefs and sympathies - and the appearance of impartiality are of the essence, then dressing accordingly seems a reasonable thing to ask of those who fulfil such roles.
The other issue is about concealing one's face. This has all sorts of connotations of deceit and lack of trust. People communicate in more ways than just by using words.
Again there are a whole lot of jobs where this doesn't matter. And a set of customer-facing jobs - such as salesmen and actors - where it does.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I have never been to Quebec and know little of the situation there.It is possible that the crucifix which is sometimes mentioned is indeed simply a cultural item telling about the religious past of the province. If this crucifix should be removed to protect religious neutrality of the state,what about paintings of a religious nature in the art galleries of the province ? (Am I wrong in assuming that there are state sponsored art galleries in Quebec?) I don't know what the flag of Quebec looks like,but if it is anything like the flag of the French city of St-Malo from where a number of Quebekers stemmed then there will be a cross on it.Would that affect religious neutrality ?
The crucifix was placed above the speaker's chair in 1936 by Premier Duplessis, who was probably the closest Canada had to a clerical fascist leader in the manner of Salazar(which is not to say that he was the only politician in Canada who did bad stuff).
The point was very much to promote Catholicism as the guiding force of Quebec society. So no, it's not really comparable to a painting of the Last Supper hanging in an art gallery along with Van Goghs and Warhols.
quote:
I don't know what the flag of Quebec looks like,but if it is anything like the flag of the French city of St-Malo from where a number of Quebekers stemmed then there will be a cross on it.Would that affect religious neutrality ?
Most of the crosses on Canadian provincial flags appear in the context of representing a flag from the British Isles, ie. the Union Jack, but also St. George, St. Andrew etc. So the immediate purpose is more to establish a linkage to the old country, rather than to the Christian religion.
The one province with a non-British cross on its flag IS actually Quebec. I guess you could argue that it was put on for the direct purpose of promoting Christianity, since it doesn't seem to resemble any other national flag that I know of, but I think it's such a generic stylization, few people looking at the flag in the year 2017 are going to take the message to be "Catholics are the boss of this place."
But I think people are likely to get that impression from an image of the crucified Jesus shown on TV every time the legislature is televised.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Forthview:
I just looked at the flag of St. Malo, and yeah, their cross does look a lot like the one in the Quebec flag. Though I think the majority of Quebecois are descended from settlers from Normandy, with Bretons being second. So I'm not sure if the Quebec flag would have been meant to represent a Breton city.
Maybe that's a common way that crosses are portrayed on French flags?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Forthview:
I just looked at the flag of St. Malo, and yeah, their cross does look a lot like the one in the Quebec flag. Though I think the majority of Quebecois are descended from settlers from Normandy, with Bretons being second. So I'm not sure if the Quebec flag would have been meant to represent a Breton city.
Maybe that's a common way that crosses are portrayed on French flags?
It's fairly common for French military and regimental flags of the ancien régime. Flag freaks (vexillomanes) may find this page of interest.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Forthview:
I just looked at the flag of St. Malo, and yeah, their cross does look a lot like the one in the Quebec flag. Though I think the majority of Quebecois are descended from settlers from Normandy, with Bretons being second. So I'm not sure if the Quebec flag would have been meant to represent a Breton city.
Maybe that's a common way that crosses are portrayed on French flags?
It's fairly common for French military and regimental flags of the ancien régime. Flag freaks (vexillomanes) may find this page of interest. An early separatist flag had the Sacred Heart impressed on the provincial flag-- I am not sure if we are likely to see that used.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
According to a factoid I saw today, there are about 300 women in Quebec that wear the niqab or other full-face covering. The population of Quebec is about 8.2 million, so by my math, that's 0.003% of the population.
The only point of the legislation is to harass a very small number of women who practice their religion in a certain way. Inevitably, this will be interpreted by some as permission to harass all visibly Muslim women. I wonder what will happen if a Quebecoise bride wants to wear a veil while having a civil wedding or a veiled nun wants to ride the bus ...
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Stetson, why should it be that the Canadian flags of British provenance with crosses on them simply indicate a link with the 'old country',but the flag of Quebec with a different cross on it indicates Christianity ? Surely it could, like the flags of British . For many people of Quebec the 'old country' is France and in particular with the Breton city of St-Malo. Surely they have as much right to be as proud of their 'origins' as the people of the Anglophone parts of Canada sometimes are.
Now ,if the crucifix in the government building in question is only there to say 'Catholics are the bosses here' then it depends what you mean by 'bosses'.If I understand correctly Catholics and those of Catholic background form by far the majority of the population in the province , does this necessarily mean that those who are not Catholics are second class citizens ?
If so, what happens if the Head of State attends in Canada in an official capacity an Anglican church, does that indicate 'the Protestant ?s are the bosses here' ?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Having lived on the fringes of French Canada for many years, I do not know if I would say that francophone Québécois look upon France as the old country in the way that my Ottawa Valley relations look upon Scotland as the old country. The relations between Québec and France are complex, but the Québécois are quite aware that France preferred to keep Guadeloupe and let Canada go when they were given the choice in 1763.
The Cross in the Assembly is not, I would suggest, a religious symbol, but rather a nationalist symbol in religious form. The crosses on flags would follow the same pattern. Still, many semiologists would challenge me to wrestling matches on this one.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
If so, what happens if the Head of State attends in Canada in an official capacity an Anglican church, does that indicate 'the Protestant ?s are the bosses here' ?
As far as I know, if the Queen attends an Anglican service in Canada, she does so as a private citizen, or at least not as Supreme Governor of the Church Of Canada.
Because there is no such church. Anglicanism in Canada has no governmental connections whatsoever.
And yes, you could argue that there is at least a residue of "Protestants are the boss here" in the Queen retaining her status as Supreme Governor in the UK. Which is a little bit of symbolism that doesn't bother me overmuch(the UK is still a pretty tolerant country), unless the British government were to announce a plan to forbid people from giving or receiving government services while wearing religious symbols, in the name of SECULARISM, all the while steadfastly refusing to disestablish the C Of E.
In that case, yes, the Brits would be open to the same charge of double-standards that I and others are levelling at the Quebec government.
quote:
Now ,if the crucifix in the government building in question is only there to say 'Catholics are the bosses here' then it depends what you mean by 'bosses'.If I understand correctly Catholics and those of Catholic background form by far the majority of the population in the province , does this necessarily mean that those who are not Catholics are second class citizens ?
Well, the guy who put the cross up there pretty clearly considered non-Catholics to be second-class citizens. See for example...
Roncarelli Vs. Duplessis
...to get an idea of how he treated religious minorities who dared step on the toes of the Catholic Church. (He went a bit easier on the WASP economic elite, for obvious reasons.)
That said, it is possible to support the continued presence of the Crucifix in the legislature, without wanting a return to the days when Jehovah's Witnesses were locked up for handing out the Watchtower. The point is, if you support that remaining there, it's kind of hard to expect anyone to take seriously your claim that a policy forbidding Muslims from wearing religious symbols while getting government services is motivated by religious neutrality.
I have to get to work now. I might write more later.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Augustine wrote:
quote:
The Cross in the Assembly is not, I would suggest, a religious symbol, but rather a nationalist symbol in religious form.
But then, could a man wearing Sikh headgear claim that he's not really doing it for religious reasons, just as a statement in favour of an independent Punjab(or whatever region Sikh separatists want as their own)?
Or is it only the state that gets the benefit of the doubt when arguing that their use of a religious symbol isn't really religious at all?
As for the provincial flags, I think their use of the Union Jack etc is like a Korean restaurant in Toronto hanging up the flag of South Korea in their lobby. The flag itself contains the Tao symbol and I Ching characters, but promotion of those ideas is not the reason the flag is being displayed.
It's a bit different if the Tao symbol were displayed by itself, not as part of a national flag. Then I would assume the point, at least in part, is to promote Taoism.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Stetson,just to be clear I would not at all want to restrict anyone in the performance of what they see as their religious duties or in conforming, wherever possible, to the ideas of their own culture.
I am regularly in the Arab countries of the Middle East and am aware of their attitude to religious culture and also to the presence of non-Muslims in their society - both positives and negatives.
I am also old enough to remember the days when Catholics in Scotland were regularly subject to petty discriminations, sometimes indeed more than petty.
For me, however, these days are long past. I am in no way worried by the Queen being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, nor in any way by the fact that there are many more Protestants than Catholics in my country. As followers of Christ we have much to learn from each other, and indeed we have to learn from followers of other religions also.
What saddens me is that some people would seem to associate the presence of an image of Christ on the cross in a government building as a symbol of Catholic dominance over other religions or other forms of Christianity. It may have been this a long time ago, but is this still the case in today's Canada ?
Thank you ,Stetson, for giving me information about the particular case involving Duplessis
and thank you SPK for telling me about the Jesuit Estates Act and the compensation eventually offered to the Jesuits for the seizure of their land.
I hope that the Province of Quebec can find a way forward which will respect all who live within its borders.
I agree with Augustine that French speaking Canadians are less likely than English speaking Canadians to talk about possible ancestors in Europe. I often work in Scotland with French Canadians, who are not usually coming to seek their ancestors in this country as some Anglophone Canadians might be doing. They are, however, usually aware of the fact that the origins of their language lie in France and French speaking culture and history - a major religious site for French Canadians being Ste Anne de Beaupre which is a reminder of the major
Breton shrine of Ste Anne d'Auray.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
...What saddens me is that some people would seem to associate the presence of an image of Christ on the cross in a government building as a symbol of Catholic dominance over other religions or other forms of Christianity. It may have been this a long time ago, but is this still the case in today's Canada ?....
I do hope you're also sad that the people in the room with that crucifix actually voted to outlaw another religion's practices. Not a long time ago. In today's Canada.
If it saddens you to call it "Catholic" domination, what would you prefer? Pure laine* domination? Francophone domination? Cultural Chistianity domination? Nativist domination?
Personally, I'm sad that Quebec's distinct identity is being used (yet again) as a political excuse to promote hatred. That's not what the notwithstanding clause is for, folks.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_laine
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Forthview writes:
quote:
They are, however, usually aware of the fact that the origins of their language lie in France and French speaking culture and history - a major religious site for French Canadians being Ste Anne de Beaupre which is a reminder of the major
Breton shrine of Ste Anne d'Auray.
*tangent alert* I agree entirely with Forthview's statement on the part of the sentence leading to the dash. But as a certified pilgrimage expert, I can assure you that of the many who frequent or who are knowledgeable about the shrine of Sainte Anne de Beaupré, you would be astonishingly lucky to find one in 10 who would know of the Breton shrine. Saint Anne, of course, is the patron of Canada for RCs (along with Jean de Brébeuf f.d. 26 October) and is venerated particularly among Aboriginal RCs (viz., the annual pilgrimage to Lac Sainte Anne in Alberta), perhaps due to the great respect most First Peoples Canadians have for grandmothers.
Anglicans get Saint John the Baptist as their patron, of course, although at a low mass at Saint Onoforio's last week, the collect of martyrs was said for Jean de Brébeuf.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Soror magna- I was informed that the crucifix in question was placed in the chamber during the time of politician of a 'fascist hue' called Duplessis. I read that he died in 1959 and I judge that the crucifix predates his death. Probably,but not definitely more than 70 years ago.
If the Quebec government is persecuting people because of their religious beliefs now in today's Canada,then I would most certainly not agree with this.
On the other hand there is sometimes an understandable pride in being 'pure laine' or 'de vieille souche' and I would not hold that against anyone.
Do you know that there are in England some people who are very proud of 'coming over with the Conqueror' in 1066 ?
Equally I understand that there are some citizens of the USA who are proud to be able to trace their ancestry back to the Pilgrim Fathers.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Sainte Anne is the patron saint of Brittany,France,as well as secondary patron Saint Yves,a lawyer, whose portrait,along with a crucifix,would have been in every Breton courtroom until the separation of Church and State well over 100 years ago.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Do you know that there are in England some people who are very proud of 'coming over with the Conqueror' in 1066 ?
Yes, but they're dicks. There's a world of difference between being interested to find that your forebears were named Norman knights and being 'very proud' of that. Being proud of your 'blood line' is verging on the fascistic.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Do you know that there are in England some people who are very proud of 'coming over with the Conqueror' in 1066 ?
Yes, but they're dicks. There's a world of difference between being interested to find that your forebears were named Norman knights and being 'very proud' of that. Being proud of your 'blood line' is verging on the fascistic.
And simply weird. Pride in something that one hasn't achieved is madness.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Forthview wrote:
quote:
What saddens me is that some people would seem to associate the presence of an image of Christ on the cross in a government building as a symbol of Catholic dominance over other religions or other forms of Christianity. It may have been this a long time ago, but is this still the case in today's Canada ?
Well, I think the Aleut might have been onto something when he said that the Crucifix represented nationalism in a religious form, or something like that.
And to repeat myself from earlier on the thread: I think that for many people in Quebec, Catholicism is sort of a cultural dividing line. Most people don't really believe in its tenets, however nominal adherence and respect for the symbolism is used to distinguish old-stock Quebeckers(whose values are to be lionized) from newcomers(who can just go eff themselves).
But if a Muslim is told that she can't wear a headscarf while picking up her driver's license, but it's okay for the Assembly to have a crucifix hanging up, I think it's gonna be pretty easy for her to view that as religious discrimination, and I'm not sure how much luck you'd have trying to get her to see that it's really all just about culture.
And, just to be clear, I wouldn't really care about the Crucifix being left where it is in the Assembly, if the Quebec government wasn't otherwise making such a big deal about "secularism" when it comes to restricting the practices of religious minority groups.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Soror Magna wrote:
quote:
Personally, I'm sad that Quebec's distinct identity is being used (yet again) as a political excuse to promote hatred. That's not what the notwithstanding clause is for, folks.
Actually, the nothwithstanding clause hasn't been invoked(yet) in this controversy, and is not directly linked to Quebec's standing as a "distinct society", which has never managed to achieve constitutional recognition.
Section 33 was put into the Charter Of Rights at the insistence of a group of western premiers, and gives the various legislatures the right to over-rule Charter-based court rulings. (Quebec did not agree to anything about the Charter, but it went ahead anyway.)
The section says nothing about Quebec being a distinct society, or indeed, anything about Quebec at all. But it can be, and in fact has been, used to assert Quebec's autonomy against the courts, specifically in one case related to the restriction of English-language signs.
The idea of constitutionally recognizing Quebec as a "distinct society" was promoted by Prime Minister Mulroney in the 80s and 90s. Two attempts were made to get this passed into law, the first thwarted by provincial legislatures, the second by a national referendum.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0