|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious neutrality and public officials
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
@ 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 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm a fast learner.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Most droll. Your are eliding 50 years there lilBuddha.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BabyWombat
Shipmate
# 18552
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us, with a gladsome mind…..
Posts: 102 | From: US | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
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 ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
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' ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
