View Topic

@Seroim I made that last post ina bit of an emotional mood, since laïcité is actually a thing I throughly 100% despise, and I was enraged that somebody would defend it on this site, let alone to prop up an islamophobic policy.

Listen, every society is going to enforce a moral code of some sort. That's why we have bans against public nudity and icnest even though they are theoretically harmless. They represent an abhorrent perversion to our concept of family, and to what we consider decent in public. The argument is not if society can enforce a moral code, because it's impossible for a society not to. It's whether a woman openly epxressing her religion by covering her face should be considered a societal perversion and stamped out. Your arguments seem to be:

1. The majority of Quebecois think niqabs are oppressive, therefore they are oppressive.
1. The niqab runs in heresy to the Quebec state religion of militant apathy and should be stamped out.

I'm sorry, I don't accept either. People should have the right to be open and loud about their religious beliefs. They should have the right to cover their faces, to wear cross necklaces, to wear kippahs, to pray in public. There is harm in people establishing  astranglehold on all society with their religious beliefs, as what happened to pre-1960s Quebec, but forcing people to keep quiet about their religious beliefs and even abandon them if they are too non-conforming is a disgusting and obvious front against freedom of religion. Both are societally unhealthy state forays into religion, and ought to be curtailed.

Also, it's also important to note that according to statistics, Quebec is the most Islamophobic province in Canada, topping even notoriousy conservative Alberta. I can't help but wonder how much of this is playing into this utilization of "laïcité", and I also wonder how long it'll be until headveiling period - Which unlike Niqab is almost universally considered mandatory under Islam - Is considered " flaunting the most basic rules of "vivre-ensemble" and banned too, along with Sikh headcoverings. It's not like they're that far away from Niqabs in terms of showing one's religiosity.

The moment something becomes "mandatory" for all practitioners of a religion, like you're describing with the head-veiling period, then it crosses my line of don't-force-shit-on-people and I lose all sympathy for said argument, since it seeks to conform members of society just as much as this law does. In fact, my sympathies then shift to the state, since if the state hadn't intervened when religions were being excessively stupid, we'd still be in the dark ages.

EDIT: I also wonder how islamophobia is defined with the statistics you cite.

I finally have a bit of time to post my thoughts, so here they are:

In general, I believe that consenting adults should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't physically or materially harm a non-consenting party...to do otherwise is nothing short of forcing one person or group's values on another. You know, it wasn't so long ago that society decided that homosexuality wasn't acceptable in public life...or at all, for that matter. Because of that, I'm weary of the idea that a majority can disregard the individual rights of the minority.

However, I also believe that there can be practical reasons that have to be balanced against those rights. For example, a law requiring that people uncover their head when a visual identification is required to verify who they are and compare what they look like to their photo ID. But it sounds to me like "receiving or giving government services" is a lot broader than that.

More broadly, it appears that everyone agrees this ban is targeted toward a group of people that if we're being honest is disliked and even feared by segments of Western society that are propping up right-wing parties and candidates, especially those campaigning to reduce or eliminate immigration of refugees from the Middle East. If this is the case, than the real problem is discrimination against a group of people by the majority that supported this law, which I touched on a bit earlier.

The moment something becomes "mandatory" for all practitioners of a religion, like you're describing with the head-veiling period, then it crosses my line of don't-force-shit-on-people and I lose all sympathy for said argument, since it seeks to conform members of society just as much as this law does. In fact, my sympathies then shift to the state, since if the state hadn't intervened when religions were being excessively stupid, we'd still be in the dark ages.

EDIT: I also wonder how islamophobia is defined with the statistics you cite.

Oh my goodness, are you seriously arguing that it's okay for people's religious liberties to be curtailed because you think religions shouldn't tell people what to do? Is that seriously how bad Post-Christianity is now that a religion merely putting forth obligations is seen as a front on society?

I finally have a bit of time to post my thoughts, so here they are:

In general, I believe that consenting adults should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't physically or materially harm a non-consenting party...to do otherwise is nothing short of forcing one person or group's values on another. You know, it wasn't so long ago that society decided that homosexuality wasn't acceptable in public life...or at all, for that matter. Because of that, I'm weary of the idea that a majority can disregard the individual rights of the minority.

However, I also believe that there can be practical reasons that have to be balanced against those rights. For example, a law requiring that people uncover their head when a visual identification is required to verify who they are and compare what they look like to their photo ID. But it sounds to me like "receiving or giving government services" is a lot broader than that.

More broadly, it appears that everyone agrees this ban is targeted toward a group of people that if we're being honest is disliked and even feared by segments of Western society that are propping up right-wing parties and candidates, especially those campaigning to reduce or eliminate immigration of refugees from the Middle East. If this is the case, than the real problem is discrimination against a group of people by the majority that supported this law, which I touched on a bit earlier.

It includes going to universities and hospitals.

'an affront to' not 'a front on', sorry i know that's nitpicky and makes it seem like that's some kind of criticism of your argument but no it just annoyed me and i thought i should point it out

ANYWAY
The fundamental problem perceived with laicite is that it disproportionately affects Muslims.
Well, yeah, that's the side-effect of fostering a secular society in your formerly religious country - once religion loses its place of primacy, it's a lot less important and a lot less people bother with it beyond the forms, so ostensibly Catholic people aren't nearly as Catholic as they were in the past. But back when it was first introduced, it disproportionately affected Christians, many of whom were probably exactly as offended as present-day Muslims about having their religious freedoms curtailed - the only difference is they didn't have social media to widely publicize their complaints about perceived violation of their civil liberties.
So it's true that the impact is disproportionately felt by Muslims nowadays, but this is a long-standing tradition of life in France (and evidently Quebec as I'm now learning) - it's not some measure thought up in the last 5 years specifically targeting Muslims (although yes, the head covering ban totally is and I object to that).

So to me the fundamental question about laicite becomes whether the established majority population has an obligation to abandon cultural and social traditions in order to appease new migrants, or whether new migrants should instead strive to assimilate into the culture of the state that they are moving to.
I personally favor the latter, because otherwise there's no way to maintain a national identity, since otherwise the moment a new group disagrees with some element of your culture, you are now obligated to abandon it. And at the risk of using one of those shitty slippery slope arguments, the end result of that would be states becoming just sort of a group of vaguely associated people who all live in broadly the same place, but otherwise have little in common.
I'm not suggesting that central governments should enforce assimilation - but I am saying that the people of a particular state are within their rights to exert some form of social pressure on migrants of any stripe (whether economic migrants, refugees, whatever) to either assimilate into the broader culture, tolerate this social pressure, or leave.
Obviously with the caveat that said social pressure not cross the line into overt harassment or violence, difficult as that may be to achieve.

'an affront to' not 'a front on', sorry i know that's nitpicky and makes it seem like that's some kind of criticism of your argument but no it just annoyed me and i thought i should point it out

ANYWAY
The fundamental problem perceived with laicite is that it disproportionately affects Muslims.
Well, yeah, that's the side-effect of fostering a secular society in your formerly religious country - once religion loses its place of primacy, it's a lot less important and a lot less people bother with it beyond the forms, so ostensibly Catholic people aren't nearly as Catholic as they were in the past. But back when it was first introduced, it disproportionately affected Christians, many of whom were probably exactly as offended as present-day Muslims about having their religious freedoms curtailed - the only difference is they didn't have social media to widely publicize their complaints about perceived violation of their civil liberties.
So it's true that the impact is disproportionately felt by Muslims nowadays, but this is a long-standing tradition of life in France (and evidently Quebec as I'm now learning) - it's not some measure thought up in the last 5 years specifically targeting Muslims (although yes, the head covering ban totally is and I object to that).

So to me the fundamental question about laicite becomes whether the established majority population has an obligation to abandon cultural and social traditions in order to appease new migrants, or whether new migrants should instead strive to assimilate into the culture of the state that they are moving to.
I personally favor the latter, because otherwise there's no way to maintain a national identity, since otherwise the moment a new group disagrees with some element of your culture, you are now obligated to abandon it. And at the risk of using one of those shitty slippery slope arguments, the end result of that would be states becoming just sort of a group of vaguely associated people who all live in broadly the same place, but otherwise have little in common.
I'm not suggesting that central governments should enforce assimilation - but I am saying that the people of a particular state are within their rights to exert some form of social pressure on migrants of any stripe (whether economic migrants, refugees, whatever) to either assimilate into the broader culture, tolerate this social pressure, or leave.
Obviously with the caveat that said social pressure not cross the line into overt harassment or violence, difficult as that may be to achieve.

lol laicite isn't "Quebec culture". If that's the case, Roe Vs Wade is American culture.

And no. Immigrants aren't obligated to assimilate under any circumstances. No one should be forced to abandon their parents' culture in order to gain a quality of life. I absolutely do not stand for the rhetoric pushed against Jews in the early 20th century be used against Muslims today. But either way, we're talking about a religion, not a culture. A Muslim can assimilate and be a Francophone without losing their religion. under that same logic, non-Christians should be forced to convert to Christianity upon immigrating to America.

lol laicite isn't "Quebec culture". If that's the case, Roe Vs Wade is American culture.

And no. Immigrants aren't obligated to assimilate under any circumstances. No one should be forced to abandon their parents' culture in order to gain a quality of life. I absolutely do not stand for the rhetoric pushed against Jews in the early 20th century be used against Muslims today. But either way, we're talking about a religion, not a culture. A Muslim can assimilate and be a Francophone without losing their religion. under that same logic, non-Christians should be forced to convert to Christianity upon immigrating to America.

Fine, I phrased it poorly. My point was that a high degree of secularism was an important part of the culture. People don't go to Saudi Arabia or Malaysia demanding that they stop being a fundamentally Muslim states - why should people get to go to France or Quebec demanding that they stop being fundamentally secular states?

But I disagree with you as far as immigrants assimilating, although we may have different notions of it. When I say assimilation or integration, I mean that wherever the hell you're from, you think of yourself as being fundamentally French (or Canadian or American or wherever the hell), rather than going to some country with the express intention of continuing to be an Uzbek or Somali or whatever your origin was. Look at Singapore - essentially everyone from there is originally an immigrant. They (I find it hard to say 'we' when I'm in another country where I'm also a citizen) see themselves as Singaporean Chinese, or Malay, or Indian, or whatever. Most people in America see themselves as ____-American, whether that blank is Irish, Polish, Jewish, African, whatever.
Evidently you have the impression that integration is abandoning all links to your culture in favor of some homogeneous whole. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. But at the very least there should be some fundamental values that you share with everyone else.

lol laicite isn't "Quebec culture". If that's the case, Roe Vs Wade is American culture.

And no. Immigrants aren't obligated to assimilate under any circumstances. No one should be forced to abandon their parents' culture in order to gain a quality of life. I absolutely do not stand for the rhetoric pushed against Jews in the early 20th century be used against Muslims today. But either way, we're talking about a religion, not a culture. A Muslim can assimilate and be a Francophone without losing their religion. under that same logic, non-Christians should be forced to convert to Christianity upon immigrating to America.

Fine, I phrased it poorly. My point was that a high degree of secularism was an important part of the culture. People don't go to Saudi Arabia or Malaysia demanding that they stop being a fundamentally Muslim states - why should people get to go to France or Quebec demanding that they stop being fundamentally secular states?

But I disagree with you as far as immigrants assimilating, although we may have different notions of it. When I say assimilation or integration, I mean that wherever the hell you're from, you think of yourself as being fundamentally French (or Canadian or American or wherever the hell), rather than going to some country with the express intention of continuing to be an Uzbek or Somali or whatever your origin was. Look at Singapore - essentially everyone from there is originally an immigrant. They (I find it hard to say 'we' when I'm in another country where I'm also a citizen) see themselves as Singaporean Chinese, or Malay, or Indian, or whatever. Most people in America see themselves as ____-American, whether that blank is Irish, Polish, Jewish, African, whatever.
Evidently you have the impression that integration is abandoning all links to your culture in favor of some homogeneous whole. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. But at the very least there should be some fundamental values that you share with everyone else.

Yeah, America ain't a good exmaple of successfully integrating multiple cultures. More accurately, it's melted multiple cultures down to a flimsy, marketable piece of slime with no genuine ties to any culture whatsoever.

Also, it's hard to find a Muslim in America who doesn't despise Saudi Arabia, and al-Azhar which is the most powerful Sunni Islamic institution in the world has strongly defended Egypt's Christian community. The Quran states plainly that nobody can be coerced into Islam, and any Muslim majority country which attempts to stifle the liberities of Non-Muslims in the name of defending Islam is actively going against their own religion. So no, I criticize non-Muslim majority countries which attempt to coerce Muslims out of Islam and I criticize Muslim majority countries which attempt to coerce Non-Muslims into Islam. Both are commiting acts of evil and infringing on one's god given liberities.

The moment something becomes "mandatory" for all practitioners of a religion, like you're describing with the head-veiling period, then it crosses my line of don't-force-shit-on-people and I lose all sympathy for said argument, since it seeks to conform members of society just as much as this law does. In fact, my sympathies then shift to the state, since if the state hadn't intervened when religions were being excessively stupid, we'd still be in the dark ages.

EDIT: I also wonder how islamophobia is defined with the statistics you cite.

Oh my goodness, are you seriously arguing that it's okay for people's religious liberties to be curtailed because you think religions shouldn't tell people what to do? Is that seriously how bad Post-Christianity is now that a religion merely putting forth obligations is seen as a front on society?

I can't speak for society, only for myself. But yeah. I don't like religions obligating anyone to do anything. It starts with small gestures and ceremonies, and people become so accustomed to doing whatever the fuck their church order tells them to do, that atrocities are committed for no other reason than "my god/priest/angel/flying-spaghetti-monster ordered me to do it." To give a relatively extreme example: many men still living today think it would be a fine idea to cut out women's clitorises, and they view this as a good thing, since women would not be tempted to do evil things. We're talking about little girls who get mutilated, and they have no say in the matter. Do you think shit this extreme just happens one random day? Nope. It happens over a long time that people don't think for themselves and just do whatever their local religion tells them to do. So yeah, being forced to veil your head doesn't have nearly as disastrous consequences as the aforementioned example, but it's a start. Frankly, Muslim women ought not to submit to this stuff. Nor should Christian women be forced to submit to any random religious practice telling them what to wear or how to behave.

The moment something becomes "mandatory" for all practitioners of a religion, like you're describing with the head-veiling period, then it crosses my line of don't-force-shit-on-people and I lose all sympathy for said argument, since it seeks to conform members of society just as much as this law does. In fact, my sympathies then shift to the state, since if the state hadn't intervened when religions were being excessively stupid, we'd still be in the dark ages.

EDIT: I also wonder how islamophobia is defined with the statistics you cite.

Oh my goodness, are you seriously arguing that it's okay for people's religious liberties to be curtailed because you think religions shouldn't tell people what to do? Is that seriously how bad Post-Christianity is now that a religion merely putting forth obligations is seen as a front on society?

I can't speak for society, only for myself. But yeah. I don't like religions obligating anyone to do anything. It starts with small gestures and ceremonies, and people become so accustomed to doing whatever the fuck their church order tells them to do, that atrocities are committed for no other reason than "my god/priest/angel/flying-spaghetti-monster ordered me to do it." To give a relatively extreme example: many men still living today think it would be a fine idea to cut out women's clitorises, and they view this as a good thing, since women would not be tempted to do evil things. We're talking about little girls who get mutilated, and they have no say in the matter. Do you think shit this extreme just happens one random day? Nope. It happens over a long time that people don't think for themselves and just do whatever their local religion tells them to do. So yeah, being forced to veil your head doesn't have nearly as disastrous consequences as the aforementioned example, but it's a start. Frankly, Muslim women ought not to submit to this stuff. Nor should Christian women be forced to submit to any random religious practice telling them what to wear or how to behave.

You've just outlawed religion. Period. There is no such thing as a religion which doesn't tell you to do somethinng. Whether we are talking about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Neo-Paganism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc. Eveyr religon - Every religion - Demands certain obligations from you. Whether it's the obligation to go to church in Christianity, or the obligation to leave your hair uncut in Sikhism, or the obligation to pray five times a day in Islam, these obligations are non-negotiable andto stray away from them is considered sinful, and it should.  Religions demanding obligations isn't extremist, it's the nature of religions. they're systems of philosophical law that are quite far reaching, and to reeduce religion into a nebulous form of "spirituality" as what's increasingly being done in the West is to not have a religion at all. And a government which bans any religious obligation is a government that has de facto enforced State Atheism.

But I'm sure that's alright with you. You're a hip kid. You don't obey the authority of any old 2,000 year old book, and you think you're smarter for it. 'Tis the natural conclusion of thinking agnostic religious apathy is the only pure form of spiritual belief and can never be manipulated toward repressive and totalitarian ends, I guess.

You know better than to think that a woman believing she needs to cover her hair to stay true to her faith isn't a slippery slope to suicide bombings and witch trials. And leave that "Flying Spaghetti Monster" garbage back in 2012, it's overdone to oblivion now.

I don't recall attacking you, and would appreciate it if you didn't make this quite so personal.

Religious scriptures sure make a lot of demands, but modern religious institutions, not so much. Many modern churches make no demands on their followers. They've just sort of become little communities where people can come to pray and, if they feel so inclined, give money to help the poor. I love it, even if I think they go against everything their religious book tells them to do. I have a feeling most of them doubt the existence of their god, but are still scared of the implications, so they just choose to use the religion for positive ends. In so doing, they come a lot closer to the original vision for Christianity: love all, to help all, and leave the laws of the first testament behind.

I don't recall attacking you, and would appreciate it if you didn't make this quite so personal.

Religious scriptures sure make a lot of demands, but modern religious institutions, not so much. Many modern churches make no demands on their followers. They've just sort of become little communities where people can come to pray and, if they feel so inclined, give money to help the poor. I love it, even if I think they go against everything their religious book tells them to do. I have a feeling most of them doubt the existence of their god, but are still scared of the implications, so they just choose to use the religion for positive ends. In so doing, they come a lot closer to the original vision for Christianity: love all, to help all, and leave the laws of the first testament behind.

And who here said anything about religious institutions dictating things? All I said was that veiling is near universally considered obligatory to Islamic jurists - Jurists being Fuqaha or trained scholars.

Not that, say, the Roman Catholic Church saying failing to go to church on Sunday is a sin is a road leading up to the crusades.

I don't recall attacking you, and would appreciate it if you didn't make this quite so personal.

Religious scriptures sure make a lot of demands, but modern religious institutions, not so much. Many modern churches make no demands on their followers. They've just sort of become little communities where people can come to pray and, if they feel so inclined, give money to help the poor. I love it, even if I think they go against everything their religious book tells them to do. I have a feeling most of them doubt the existence of their god, but are still scared of the implications, so they just choose to use the religion for positive ends. In so doing, they come a lot closer to the original vision for Christianity: love all, to help all, and leave the laws of the first testament behind.

And who here said anything about religious institutions dictating things? All I said was that veiling is near universally considered obligatory to Islamic jurists - Jurists being Fuqaha or trained scholars.

Not that, say, the Roman Catholic Church saying failing to go to church on Sunday is a sin is a road leading up to the crusades.

Once more, I disagree. What happened to people who didn't go to church? Violence was the norm against anyone perceived as a heretic, and the punishments were damn severe. It is no surprise such a violent and ignorant system thought the crusades was a good idea. And this isn't linked to religion, exclusively. Any system where people are taught to do things for no other reason than 'because I said so' easily leads to atrocities being committed.

I don't recall attacking you, and would appreciate it if you didn't make this quite so personal.

Religious scriptures sure make a lot of demands, but modern religious institutions, not so much. Many modern churches make no demands on their followers. They've just sort of become little communities where people can come to pray and, if they feel so inclined, give money to help the poor. I love it, even if I think they go against everything their religious book tells them to do. I have a feeling most of them doubt the existence of their god, but are still scared of the implications, so they just choose to use the religion for positive ends. In so doing, they come a lot closer to the original vision for Christianity: love all, to help all, and leave the laws of the first testament behind.

And who here said anything about religious institutions dictating things? All I said was that veiling is near universally considered obligatory to Islamic jurists - Jurists being Fuqaha or trained scholars.

Not that, say, the Roman Catholic Church saying failing to go to church on Sunday is a sin is a road leading up to the crusades.

Once more, I disagree. What happened to people who didn't go to church? Violence was the norm against anyone perceived as a heretic, and the punishments were damn severe. It is no surprise such a violent and ignorant system thought the crusades was a good idea. And this isn't linked to religion, exclusively. Any system where people are taught to do things for no other reason than 'because I said so' easily leads to atrocities being committed.

Yeah, notice that I didn't say anything about the RCC establishing physical punishments for those not attending church? Acting as if any sort of religious organization leads to theocracy is no more rational than acting as if any sort of welfare system leads to Bolshevism.

Let us not beat around the bush. Once something is declared sinful, anyone who commits said 'sin' faces some form of negative outcome, either by being shunned, or in more extreme cases, being physically punished. Even when this doesn't happen, most religions cover it with some hellish punishment to follow after death for sinners, and the entire religious scripture also happens to include all sorts of clauses to instill fear and unquestioning loyalty to parents and religious leaders, meaning they become a lot easier to convince of the necessity for committing atrocities if it serves some all-mighty dictator's whims.

EDIT: Calling a religion a philosophy isn't entirely true, either. The nature of philosophy is that there are no fixed rules, and everything can and should be questioned. A philosopher is expected to abandon his belief when faced with clear evidence or a strong argument for why it should be abandoned.

If a religion wants to be called a philosophy, then its scripture should be added to, even now. Dissenting opinions should be welcomed and recorded.