Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious neutrality and public officials
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
-------------------- Kerygmania host --------------------- See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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 ]
-------------------- 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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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 ...)
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Simul iustus et peccator http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
-------------------- 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
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- 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 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.
-------------------- 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 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
|
|
|