Latest Breaking News

1ProudAtheist

(346 posts)

5. A Great Idea

Thu Sep 12, 2013, 05:02 PM

Sep 2013

Some folks just do not get it when it comes to how their "free speech" is totally offensive to others. Xstians are the number one example of this. Every single time that one of them gets sanctioned for imposing their faith upon others, they start shouting about oppression. Religion is not for public consumption. It is a private enterprise that needs to be kept private. Nobody gets persecuted when everyone is forced to comply with regulations such as the ones mentioned above.

As a population, have we learned nothing from centuries of wars over religious beliefs? Nobody is going to give their beliefs up, so why keep poking the sleeping bear with a stick? Keep religious beliefs PERSONAL.........where they belong. Leave others alone, they have their own beliefs, and they are just as adamant and strong as yours are.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

77 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Charter of Quebec Values would ban �overt� religious symbols [View all] Judi Lynn Sep 2013 OP

Great example of "tolerance" becoming "intolerance". CAG Sep 2013 #1

Agree. It's xenophobic and racist, as mentioned in the article. nt bananas Sep 2013 #9

And the cross is just for appearances. The law's obviously aimed at Muslims and Sikhs. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #18

You simply reveal your ignorance about Quebec history and the hositility the large majority of snagglepuss Sep 2013 #40

Keep telling yourself downtown Montreal's the rule. It ain't. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #62

The ban on crosses will likely affect far more people marshall Sep 2013 #75

I doubt that, since those will be more taken for granted Posteritatis Sep 2013 #77

Quebec was governed for 300 years by the Catholic Church which they overthrew in 1960 KurtNYC Sep 2013 #43

Tres bon! nt valerief Sep 2013 #2

non, il n'est pas!! srican69 Sep 2013 #4

I don't think religion s/b promoted in state institutions. nt valerief Sep 2013 #6

I think you need to check your definitions of "promoting religion." (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #16

I think you need to check how to support your definition. nt valerief Sep 2013 #21

That makes one of us, I suppose. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #23

Moi, je suis d'accord. nt freedom fighter jh Sep 2013 #7

"You are a true believer, blessings of the State, blessings of the masses" MisterP Sep 2013 #3

A Great Idea 1ProudAtheist Sep 2013 #5

are you serious? codemoguy Sep 2013 #8

The ban is only for people who work in the public service and I agree with it. snagglepuss Sep 2013 #38

So. You want to ban turbans, yarmulkes and headscarves. Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #14

None of those are required as many adherents of each of those snagglepuss Sep 2013 #39

Incredibly bigoted, and incredibly ignorant. Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #42

I've worked with Sikhs who never wore head gear. It's a choice. snagglepuss Sep 2013 #44

Your hostility just reveals your ignorance of the matter. The reason a turban was snagglepuss Sep 2013 #45

"Oregon Repeals KKK Ban on Religious Clothing for Teachers" Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #49

"Free speech" != "speech of which I personally approve exclusively." Fuck that. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #15

I think it's BS kurtzapril4 Sep 2013 #29

Thanks for providing a perfect example of religious intolerance. bananas Sep 2013 #32

No, I'm not. kurtzapril4 Sep 2013 #48

What if that Women 4Q2u2 Sep 2013 #55

The Charter has suggestions on where you may shove that argument. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #64

Why 1ProudAtheist Sep 2013 #10

this got posted as a response to the OP... codemoguy Sep 2013 #11

I'm not sure this is a reply to my post, but I'm going to reply to it anyway... codemoguy Sep 2013 #12

I'm starting to think this poster is posing as an exaggerated, extreme atheist, Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #17

Wish I could believe that, but past threads on this sort of thing around here make me doubt it. Posteritatis Sep 2013 #19

"cartoonishly hateful" is a good description. bananas Sep 2013 #33

Shhh, I'm hunting wascawy wewigious zeawots. Throd Sep 2013 #60

1) OP quoted a news article 2) You have no call to label the OP "intolerant" or trying to silence Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #24

1ObnoxiousAthiest. n/t Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #34

Dude, you're the reason I don't like a lot of my fellow atheists. Throd Sep 2013 #52

So reasoning and Facts 4Q2u2 Sep 2013 #58

Atheists like you are the next to worst advertisement for Atheism possible. MicaelS Sep 2013 #76

You Don't See 1ProudAtheist Sep 2013 #13

You don't see how a thread works. Let us help you. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #26

Scarves and crosses are not mandated by religious scripture. I read it's for votes among the rurals. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #20

Rural Quebec is spectacularly, transparently bigoted Posteritatis Sep 2013 #22

Thanks for the background. It illuminates what I read. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #25

Before smearing Christians, you should educate yourself about the antipathy the vast majority snagglepuss Sep 2013 #46

You make stuff up. There is no smear. Read my post again and #22. Also, re: educating ... Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #51

I'm not making stuff up. Your exact words "It is only offensive to ignorant christians." snagglepuss Sep 2013 #57

When we say "orange cats" we do not mean all cats are orange. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #59

If rural Quebecers are culturally attached to Catholicism, it proves my point. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #61

Interesting... Sand Wind Sep 2013 #27

Good point. Didn't hurt Turkey at all. snagglepuss Sep 2013 #47

I think this crosses the line between preventing state enforced religion JoeyT Sep 2013 #28

Yep. There's plenty of mighty sheltered people here, clearly. Posteritatis Sep 2013 #65

Its very telling LiberalLovinLug Sep 2013 #30

"the insidious nature of religion" ConcernedCanuk Sep 2013 #36

Tiny laws lead to wars. Ex: Stamp Act 1765. Religious laws worst. 1559 Act of Uniformity. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #67

I'm an atheist, not a vampire. I can handle seeing a cross. Throd Sep 2013 #53

LOL! +1,000,000 (nt) Nine Sep 2013 #68

What's next? Banning symbols for Metallica? The Anarchist A? She has no balls you sexist. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #54

I won't applaud any politician who makes a point of crapping on the Charter to score points. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #66

Is this going to be enforced by the Office qu�b�cois de la langue fran�aise? DissidentVoice Sep 2013 #31

Not a big ban fan. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #35

orthodox Jews in Montreal greymattermom Sep 2013 #37

The ban is only for those who work in the public sector. Wigs would snagglepuss Sep 2013 #41

But who defines "overtly religious?" DissidentVoice Sep 2013 #50

The line's drawn at "whatever they don't like, unless it's the government at which point it's okay." Posteritatis Sep 2013 #63

Kind of like their "language police" DissidentVoice Sep 2013 #72

The article raises a few of questions... Indi Guy Sep 2013 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author Nine Sep 2013 #69

This again? Nine Sep 2013 #70

That's exactly right. Posteritatis Sep 2013 #71

Whether or not you are correct... Indi Guy Sep 2013 #73

I meant to reply to the original post, not to you. Nine Sep 2013 #74