Legault says we have to think of what's good for our children but Bill 21 is poison. I want my kids to grow up in a free, diverse culture and society that lives peaceably with each other. Moi, aussi, j'ai honte de cette législation.
Which is why the state needs to be neutral as to the religion or non-religion of its citizens, and maximize the freedom of conscience available to them, rather than discriminating against some and not others, as this law does. Scapegoating people won't help loosen the grip of any so-called fundamentalism (or absolutism) over them. It will only put them in danger.
It may seem at present that religious symbols are harmless. However you have to think of the future - if it's wrong at a small, theoretical level, it will be tremendously wrong at a large level. For example in Israel long ago, they had a very small, almost negligible population of ultra-orthodox Jews. They argued that they're so religious they shouldn't have to serve in the army, and that they should actually be paid to continuously study religion. The state said, "ok, what does it matter, sure." Now there is a huge population of Hasidic Jews none of whom serve in the military and all are being paid a growing fortune to wastefully study religion. Now it's too late to repeal the law because there are so many sectarians who will all vote against such a motion. Now Israel is stuck with these freeloaders and they're growing unsustainably. That's why if something is wrong it doesn't matter how small or inconsequential is seems it is at present, you have to ban it.
It’s so simple the argument is over. Religious symbols worn openly are advertising, nothing more or less. If you’re working for McDonald’s you wouldn’t wear a Burger King shirt, right? Or even Starbucks. You wear these things to advertise to others, if you have a cross or Kirpan in your pocket because it makes you feel devoted then fine. It’s personal. But can you explain away the basic point - why the heck should you be paid to advertise anything other than the organization you’re working for?
Chris Wiseman you can argue without name calling. The danger is you may be just deflecting that you don’t actually have an argument. Try again. Like this...stick solely to the topic at hand. The whole idea of public wearing is to promote ones religious ideology to others. Convince others, gain converts. Well that’s the very description for advertising, marketing, branding. Actively getting new converts is a personal activity. When they’re on my dime, they have only one job and that’s to promote my organization, if anything. Why should I be actually be paying anyone to promote their own organization?
We all advertise most of our time. The kind of car driven (have you removed the model and make of your car from the outside of it?), the kinds of clothes worn. So when are we not advertising? And even further, is there something wrong with advertising?
@@Apriluser Well if you're working in McDonalds and you're wearing a Nike shirt it is meaningless and harmless as far as the company is concerned. Notwithstanding their staff wear uniforms. However when providing government services you must not be biased nor show any bias towards the public. Imagine getting in a car accident and the attending policeman is wearing a turban and chatting in Hindi to the other driver, who's also a Sikh. How are those optics, and how would it make you feel if the policeman chose to give you a ticket and not the other driver? What if a Muslim walks into court with you and the judge is wearing a Jewish yarmulke? How would he feel about the outcome if it didn't go his way? A woman is going to get assessed for an abortion and the attending doctor is wearing a gigantic Christian cross? Anyone providing government services should not be allowed to display any symbols which would give any impression of bias to the public.
Legault says we have to think of what's good for our children but Bill 21 is poison. I want my kids to grow up in a free, diverse culture and society that lives peaceably with each other. Moi, aussi, j'ai honte de cette législation.
Well said, Charles Taylor!
There is something problematic with religious fundamentalism.
Which is why the state needs to be neutral as to the religion or non-religion of its citizens, and maximize the freedom of conscience available to them, rather than discriminating against some and not others, as this law does. Scapegoating people won't help loosen the grip of any so-called fundamentalism (or absolutism) over them. It will only put them in danger.
Finaly, somebody that make sense!
It may seem at present that religious symbols are harmless. However you have to think of the future - if it's wrong at a small, theoretical level, it will be tremendously wrong at a large level. For example in Israel long ago, they had a very small, almost negligible population of ultra-orthodox Jews. They argued that they're so religious they shouldn't have to serve in the army, and that they should actually be paid to continuously study religion. The state said, "ok, what does it matter, sure." Now there is a huge population of Hasidic Jews none of whom serve in the military and all are being paid a growing fortune to wastefully study religion. Now it's too late to repeal the law because there are so many sectarians who will all vote against such a motion. Now Israel is stuck with these freeloaders and they're growing unsustainably. That's why if something is wrong it doesn't matter how small or inconsequential is seems it is at present, you have to ban it.
It’s so simple the argument is over. Religious symbols worn openly are advertising, nothing more or less. If you’re working for McDonald’s you wouldn’t wear a Burger King shirt, right? Or even Starbucks. You wear these things to advertise to others, if you have a cross or Kirpan in your pocket because it makes you feel devoted then fine. It’s personal. But can you explain away the basic point - why the heck should you be paid to advertise anything other than the organization you’re working for?
Chris Wiseman you can argue without name calling. The danger is you may be just deflecting that you don’t actually have an argument. Try again. Like this...stick solely to the topic at hand. The whole idea of public wearing is to promote ones religious ideology to others. Convince others, gain converts. Well that’s the very description for advertising, marketing, branding. Actively getting new converts is a personal activity. When they’re on my dime, they have only one job and that’s to promote my organization, if anything. Why should I be actually be paying anyone to promote their own organization?
I didn't call you any names. It's obvious you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Try again.
We all advertise most of our time. The kind of car driven (have you removed the model and make of your car from the outside of it?), the kinds of clothes worn. So when are we not advertising? And even further, is there something wrong with advertising?
@@Apriluser Well if you're working in McDonalds and you're wearing a Nike shirt it is meaningless and harmless as far as the company is concerned. Notwithstanding their staff wear uniforms. However when providing government services you must not be biased nor show any bias towards the public. Imagine getting in a car accident and the attending policeman is wearing a turban and chatting in Hindi to the other driver, who's also a Sikh. How are those optics, and how would it make you feel if the policeman chose to give you a ticket and not the other driver? What if a Muslim walks into court with you and the judge is wearing a Jewish yarmulke? How would he feel about the outcome if it didn't go his way? A woman is going to get assessed for an abortion and the attending doctor is wearing a gigantic Christian cross? Anyone providing government services should not be allowed to display any symbols which would give any impression of bias to the public.