Latest Breaking News

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)

25. Thanks for the background. It illuminates what I read. nt

Reply to Posteritatis (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 12, 2013, 07:11 PM

Sep 2013

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