Re Quebec kerfuffle: Humanists/atheists have a right to be free from religion.

[snagglepuss]

Our atheist/humanist beliefs should be respected as much as any other group’s. It is one of the great glories of Canadian life.

snip

We atheists/humanists may occasionally meet in little groups for a chat but we don’t get the tax breaks that churches do... we have no special clothing or jewelry, no outer signs that we place our faith not in an imaginary deity but in the decency and courage of our fellow humans.

You will notice us only by our courteous silence, fuelled by the notion that it seems odd to speak publicly about the baseline of normality, so we speak into a mirror. Well, the mirror has crack’d, people, and we atheists are speaking up.

snip

Quebecers are entitled to a public space free of religion, just as Ontario taxpayers should not have to fund a Catholic school system, but they could not have chosen a nastier way to go about it.







http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/09/13/quebec_charter_an_atheist_speaks_up.html

[Deep13]

1. I don't think people have a right to a secular public space.

In the USA the Constitution purports to guarantee a government free of religion, but that is not the same as "public space." By the same token, I do not think religious people have a right to a public space that respects their religions. All ideas are open for discussion and criticism.

[Kali]

2. uh, it's kerFUNKLE

[Throd]

8. I've always heard "kerfuffle". Maybe it is a regional thing...

[liberalhistorian]

10. Sorry, but that's incorrect.

Kerfuffle is the correct term, I have never, ever heard "kerfunkle", it must be a regional thing. But, officially, "kerfuffle" is the real deal. One of the few advantages of growing up with not one, but two, English teachers is being able to know stuff like that.

[hughee99]

3. In Canada, when did freedom OF religion become freedom FROM religion?

How long until freedom OF speech becomes freedom FROM speech and the government can shut down speech in some places because of someone elses "right not to be offended".

[rug]

4. Now we do addition with squares

but not red squares.

[Warpy]

5. This is all about headgear worn by non Christians.

Christians are the ones who want to believe they don't exist. After all, they can tuck those gilded execution devices inside their shirts when in public. Observant Sikhs, Jews and Muslims all wear head gear that can't be removed because they feel like they're disgracing their culture when they do so.

This effectively limits government jobs to observant Christians, atheists, and hypocrites.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Fuck anyone who is offended by a yarmulke or a turban (nt)

[RebelOne]

12. I am an atheist and not offended by a yarmulke or turban.

In fact, I dated a Jewish guy for 5 years and participated in all their religious holidays and feasts where the men wore yarmulkes, which did not bother me in the least.

[Throd]

7. As an atheist and 1st amendment fan, I have to disagree

"Quebecers are entitled to a public space free of religion". No they're not. They are entitled to a public space (and government) where they do not have to recognize or submit to the rules of a religion. They are free to say that such a given religion is completely full of shit without penalty. They are also as free to spout whatever nonsense they believe just as much as the religious people.

[Dr. Strange]

14. Bingo.

[MNBrewer]

15. First Amendment of the US Constitution

Note: does not apply in Canada

[The Straight Story]

9. If you're freaked out/scared over a head scarf you have issues

And no law is gonna fix that.

[snagglepuss]

11. Exaggerate much?

[The Straight Story]

13. No.

The ad says: “We don’t care what’s on your head. We care what’s in it.”

Exactly. I care what’s in a doctor’s head too and if he or she is wearing the large cross shown in the now notorious poster of forbidden Quebec religious gear, I will decline to see that doctor and I will warn off my women friends. Religion has always been a weapon for controlling women. It must not stand.

If that doctor cared about the sensibilities of her female patients, he or she wouldn’t be wearing a large cross or a niqab, an emblem of the mistreatment of women through the ages. Why wear it at work?

If you apply only what you know about religion that you have heard from the wackos in the press and then use that to judge the many who are part of a religion we call that bias.

Wear a yamaka? The writer will refuse to see you. Reminds me of some fundies I know who refuse to let their kids dress up at halloween, and if they do it is at a church party and you can only wear things like angel costumes and such (because wearing something relating to a monster means you want to kill, endorse that monster, or have a demon in you ).

Reminds me of the right wing attacking Sikhs after 9/11 because of their 'funny hats that made em look all muslim like'. Just plain dumb. Buy hey, maybe the author was right and we should judge such people and be afraid of them.

The writer goes on to say:

I am cynical about the Oshawa ad. It didn’t show a bearded Muslim male or Jewish man in a skullcap because it didn’t dare. The hospital is being as selective with its PR as the Quebec government is careless. It is playing to the crowd, and what a strange shape-shifting crowd it is.

I deplore the Quebec rules even more than I deplore religious belief. They are a cue for religious and racial prejudice and the fact that they are superficially rational makes them worse.

So is the writer deploring the Quebec rules on the one hand because they are cues for prejudice while on the other stating they themselves are doing the exact same thing? The writer seems all over the board on it.