Will Toronto benefit from the Quebec Charter of values fisaco?

[Peepers]

I'm not going to pretend to be a religious expert, but from what I've read of various religious texts, most have one thing in common - they become hate manuals at one point or another. We really shouldn't be using taxpayer funded anything to preach religion and the intolerance that they promote to children or anyone else.

I agree there are problems with most religious texts and if I had my way I would ban all religions from preaching in public schools (or any other publicy funded space). It is a disgrace that we continue to this day to fund a Catholic school system.

 

[nfitz]

Do you still think that a book that calls for the killing of Homosexuals is NOT a hate manual?

Is it any different than the Christian bible being a hate manual?

I don't really see the need for prejudice here.

 

[someMidTowner]

The difference between a burqa and a Christmas tree is that a Christmas tree doesn't reduce 50% of the population to the status of male property.

The difference for me is that both religious head coverings and Christmas trees represent something that, as an athiest, I can't wrap my head around - the key being that my tax dollars don't pay for people's religious head coverings, but for some reason they pay for Christmas trees in public places. You can wear whatever you want on your head, wherever - and that is your right in our amazing country. But I still don't know why a cent of mine should pay for a catholic school that teaches evolution as if it were still a theory, or an electricity sucking public display of Christianity.

 

[Peepers]

Is it any different than the Christian bible being a hate manual?

I don't really see the need for prejudice here.

Does the Christian Bible call for the killing of gays? Does it call for the killing of non-Christians? Does the Bible condone pedophilia? No it doesn't!

The difference between the Christian Bible and the Quran is adherents of the later take it literally. When was the last time you heard about a Christian suicide bomber? When was the last time your heard about someone being beheaded by Christian rebels?

Stop trying to equate the Bible to the Quran. There is no comparison (I say this as an atheist)

 

[Johnny Au]

Taxpayers' dollars also go into some socially conservative groups in Canada as well (though they are not as outspoken or as controversial as their American counterparts who keep screaming "Burn the gays! Burn copies of [insert super popular super gory recent film or television show or video game here]! Kick the atheists!" or similar). After all, these groups helped give Harper a majority.

 

[toraerach]

For example, a woman in a Muslim family in Scarborough who is under the yoke of Sharia law offends and impacts me, even though I'm not the person (the woman in question) being directly impacted. It offends me and impacts me because I don't like the idea that women can be abused and treated as second class citizens in our society. This happens all the time in countries in the Middle East, and it's a tragedy there too, but I live here in Canada and I have the legal recourse to fight for the rights of women here and here I have a legitimate way to stop this. However, following Sharia law is exercising the "right" to religious freedom of expression among the more fundamental sects of Islam, including those who live there. I don't think this should be a right. So, no, I don't think you can have both.

Well no, Muslim women aren't second class - they're full citizens protected under the same laws as the rest of us. Any abuse that's occurring is already illegal regardless of freedom of religion/expression. If a woman isn't reporting the crime now, what makes you think that'll change if our laws start specifically targeting religious communities? Will the government start going door-to-door making sure no women in the household are being abused? Will they install cameras in every Muslim house to ensure women are being treated equally? Will folks be encouraged to rat out their Muslim neighbours to the Secret Police-esque agencies you'd need to enforce the end of whatever household Sharia you think exists?

The lot of Muslim women in Canada can only be improved, and will only be improved, by Muslim women themselves. That movement is already on-going (check out Zarqa Nawaz's film Me and the Mosque for one example of the kind of work that's going on). Many Muslim women (especially those who've been born/grown up here) have already found that Canadian values of equality aren't incompatible with Islam. Many Canadians who've grown up around Muslim women have found the same thing.

For all its faults, Western liberal society is actually making a move towards women's equality while Islam (or other religious groups whose freedom would be curtailed) is not. The same is true for gay rights, and the rights of other minority groups.

Yes, "Western liberal society" and "Islam" are two cohesive and mutually exclusive entities that are irreversibly drifting apart. Makes total sense.

 

[toraerach]

Does the Christian Bible call for the killing of gays?

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Does the Christian Bible call for the killing of gays? Does it call for the killing of non-Christians? Does the Bible condone pedophilia? No it doesn't!

You have to be kidding us. Have you read the bible? Not only does it call for the killing of gays, it calls for the killing of people for various other sins including not observing the sabbath. Even well read Christians will acknowledge the existence of these verses, so let's not pretend like they don't exist.

The difference between the Christian Bible and the Quran is adherents of the later take it literally. When was the last time you heard about a Christian suicide bomber? When was the last time your heard about someone being beheaded by Christian rebels?

Have you heard about the 2011 Norway attacks? Not a suicide bomber but I don't think anybody cares about the distinction.

 

[Peepers]

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

OK you nailed me Obviously I'm not a student of the Bible ( I said I was an atheist ). The point is few Christians take these ancient commandments literally. This is the difference.

 

[Peepers]

You have to be kidding us. Have you read the bible? Not only does it call for the killing of gays, it calls for the killing of people for various other sins including not observing the sabbath. Even well read Christians will acknowledge the existence of these verses, so let's not pretend like they don't exist.

see my above comments

Have you heard about the 2011 Norway attacks? Not a suicide bomber but I don't think anybody cares about the distinction.

The mass killings in Norway were not done in the name of any religion. ABB was obviously criminally insane when he carried out his attacks.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Remember this is not a proposal by "Quebec", it's a bill, an absurd political strategy by the PQ. Not only would Muslim women's head coverings have to be removed but same with turbans and even yamakas/kippahs. Come on over folks!

 

[nfitz]

Does the Christian Bible call for the killing of gays? Does it call for the killing of non-Christians? Does the Bible condone pedophilia? No it doesn't!

Good grief, they killing non-Christians all the time in the bible. It's been used to justify justify slavery and all sorts of racism and bigotry.

The difference between the Christian Bible and the Quran is adherents of the later take it literally.

And no one takes the bible literally?

Stop trying to equate the Bible to the Quran. There is no comparison (I say this as an atheist)

It's got similar origins. It's a variant on the same ancient text. They are after all both from similar Abrahamic religions.

 

[Tewder]

I'm really interested in what people are so afraid of when it comes to people wearing religious symbols?

To some of us those religious items are symbols of oppression and ignorance, much the same way a confederate flag might be for an african american. You may not see it this way, and good for you, but the point is, why should anyone have to deal with another's 'personal expressions' at all when accessing tax-funded government services?

The individual working for the government is free to have, and express, whatever religous views they have.....as is the person accessing those services....but it does not change the services and does not influence the level of separation between church and state.

No, people absolutely are not free to 'have or express' religious views when they are 'on the job' in the public service. They are entitled to these things outside of this context (to some degree). As a gay man i do not want to hear anybody 'expressing' their religious objection to my sexuality or lifestyle while accessing the government services i'm entitled to, even if just tacitly through the garb they where. Religious beliefs have zero place here... which, again, is not discriminatory if applied equally to everybody.

And this bill is not really about religion, it's about culture.

It's about both, clearly, but i do agree with you that the motivation in Quebec is likely more about cultural preservation than it is racism... though i agree with many here that there is a strong political motivation to this as well. In terms of my comments here i'm really only looking at the 'premise' itself rather than the motivation. It's an interesting premise in a pluralist society like ours.

The difference for me is that both religious head coverings and Christmas trees represent something that, as an athiest, I can't wrap my head around - the key being that my tax dollars don't pay for people's religious head coverings, but for some reason they pay for Christmas trees in public places. You can wear whatever you want on your head, wherever - and that is your right in our amazing country. But I still don't know why a cent of mine should pay for a catholic school that teaches evolution as if it were still a theory, or an electricity sucking public display of Christianity.

I think this comes back to the idea of a society's compromise and satisfaction with less than 100% tolerance. In Quebec their position is that Christmas is a part of their culture and heritage, like it or lump it, and so gets an exception. Is this really wrong? Is Bill 101 really wrong? It probably will come down to how it is executed.

Also, the funny thing with Christmas is that it has evolved into a very secular cultural holiday quite apart from its religious roots. I'm not sure whether Quebec is making a distinction between exceptions for christmas symbols that are secular (tree, santa etc) or religious (nativity scene, the cross etc)? The City of Toronto funds a Santa Claus Parade so i suspect we probably already do this too?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

To some of us those religious items are symbols of oppression and ignorance, much the same way a confederate flag might be for an african american. You may not see it this way, and good for you, but the point is, why should anyone have to deal with another's 'personal expressions' at all when accessing tax-funded government services?

Now are you *really* equating intentional flying of the confederate flag in a public setting in a manner sanctioned by the state to the individual choice of religious garment and symbols? Are you suggesting wearing of the hijab or turban is the symbol of "oppression and ignorance"? There is something really quite oppressive and ignorant about that particular view - and unfortunately, it isn't symbolized by anything that would allow one to flag it.

More to the point - does another's personal expression affect your access to tax-funded government services? No. Besides, there is something fundamentally more similar between your scenario of the Confederate flag flying to what Quebec is doing - which is elevating one's symbols above others in the name of "heritage".

No, people absolutely are not free to 'have or express' religious views when they are 'on the job' in the public service. They are entitled to these things outside of this context (to some degree). As a gay man i do not want to hear anybody 'expressing' their religious objection to my sexuality or lifestyle while accessing the government services i'm entitled to, even if just tacitly through the garb they where. Religious beliefs have zero place here... which, again, is not discriminatory if applied equally to everybody.

Government employees are not allowed to proselytize on the job or otherwise offer preferential/refuse to provide services on the basis of their faith. You are equating a manner of dress required by one's faith to the certainty that you will be prejudiced against - that's a form of reverse discrimination. Personally, I'd rather judge on the basis of how they act, instead of what they wear.

Let me reverse this a little - as a gay man, I certainly would like the ability to self-identify where I stand. Should I be prohibited from having visible jewelry with rainbow colours, however subtle, because that would offend the sensibilities of those of religious faith? (and let's not even go to whether the racist client have the right to get another worker because they don't agree with the race of their provider). Clients should have the expectation that they will be treated fairly regardless of their background - they should not have the expectation that their service provider to put aside their constitutionally protected rights just to satisfy some unwarranted perception of potential mistreatment.

AoD

 

[wwwebster]

Obviously I'm not a student of the Bible ( I said I was an atheist ).

“In the Qur'an,Allah has given warnings for homosexuals in the story of Luth prophet.”

I am not a student of the bible, and I am an atheist too, but I am, frankly, astounded that you did not recognize this as the same story told in the Christian Bible.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_(biblical_person)

The point is few Christians take these ancient commandments literally. This is the difference.

So good then, we can stop labelling a book a “hate manual” and instead concentrate on the practitioners. As an atheist, I’m not the least bit interested in getting sucked into the whole “my religion is better than your religion” crap. They’re all equally nuts.