As Québécois, I wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion.
Threats to national unity, principally from Quebec, have also led to further forms of decentralization. The provinces, and especially Quebec, have gained significant authority over matters traditionally belonging to the federal level, including immigration policy, and increasingly over foreign affairs matters like international trade.
Yes, and there are very good historical reasons for this. For one, we don’t want to be flooded with anglophone immigration only for the francophone population to become a minority, and suddenly losing our rights as a historical nation of this country. I don’t know how manu times I’ve heard people from the anglophone side of Canada say that we should just dissappear as a nation and just all speak English for practicality’s sake. I’m sorry that actual multiculturalism doesn’t fit with Canada’s view of “multiculturalism”.
Additionally, Québec’s more progressive values don’t always align with those of the rest of Canada. Québec has been called racist for having secularism laws, when it’s just a continuation of it’s separation of church and state following the quiet revolution, and its liberation from the grip that the catholic church had on the people and governments.
Québec is also the province with the most lakes, and the largest reserve of unsalted water, a precious resource that we want to preserve. Having Canada impose any type of oil exploitation activity over these can threaten that resource. So we’d very much like to keep control over what goes over, under or in those lakes.
Quebec’s secularism laws can be explained by looking at its history with religion, and how much religion has destroyed its society in the past.
Government secularism is a way for Quebec to ensure clerical interference in government never happens again.
Whether it should also affect individuals, and where the line between individuals and government is drawn, is a very hot topic even within Quebec.
As an outsider to interprovincial conflicts, I’m actually interested to know if the sentiment that Quebec should just become yet another anglophone province is actually widespread. I myself hadn’t heard much of such comments, but my circle is rather small, and they generally view Quebec favourably, and wish we (as in, Ontario, cause I live here) could do more together with Quebec, but is sometimes worried that they’ll be treated badly for their lack of ability to speak French properly if and when they visit. I too, in my very limited knowledge of interprovincial politics, wish that Quebec can continue to be its own province, with its own colours, cultures, influence, and politics.
That said, my impression of Canada’s multiculturalism isn’t one of assimilation, but rather one of a mosaic. But of course, that might not be true for some people (and “some” being some unknown percentage of the population), and I can understand the fear of demographic dilution; we’re literally seeing the likes of Russia and China playing this game in Ukraine, and West and Southwest China, respectively, using it as a justification to take over foreign land. But I don’t think it’s such a simple game of demographics. Quebec has put a high degree of requirement for good French proficiency to live effectively in the province, and if played properly with properly progressive policies, you can attract people who would want to defend Quebec’s status. If we’re simply rejecting anglophones because of a rejection of demographic dilution, and essentially rejecting the notion that these people may stand up for and with us, not only does that discredit us from criticizing others about assimilative multiculturalism, how are we different from racists? Having protectionist reasons doesn’t give us a free pass from racism.
And I also don’t agree with your defence of Quebec’s secularism laws. While I agree that state and religion should be separated, and yes that secularism laws should be in place, some policies that have been applied, such as the recent Bill 21, banning of hijabs and crosses in certain levels of professions, is nothing more than a gesture, to just show a facade of secularism without actually enforcing it, all while disrespecting the people practicing their religion, and essentially placing limitations on people’s cultures. Once again, we can’t preach multiculturalism while doing the exact opposite of it: erasing people of their cultural identity, even if it’s just in public. And if anything, such actions only push the influence that religions may have over civil and state affairs into the shadows, hiding behind suits and hair free of religious symbols on their bodies. I understand that Quebec’s is heavily influenced by the same secular principles practiced in France, but they seem to have a healthier take on secularism, allowing the Sikhs to continue wearing their turbans in all settings, for example. I can understand the fear of losing that balance and giving control back to religious institutions, but gestures that do not improve secularism are pointless, period, and they are much less when the side effects are similar to the very thing Quebec seems to fear happen to themselves: an erasure of their own identity.
I understand that this is a pretty sensitive topic for Québécois, and I understand that I may not have the full historical context to properly understand the viewpoints and stances of Québécois, and perhaps I’m just too firmly rooted in the viewpoint of humanism, but I find it difficult to be persuaded that the recent policies that are essentially protectionist or, even, nationalist, are helpful for Quebec’s position in public discourse, especially when it comes to criticisms from the rest of Canada, or the other way around.
All that’s to say, please enlighten me, about this threat from anglophone Canadians about essentially erasing Quebec identity, whether it’s a true threat or the amplification of a minority voice, and about how you think Bill 21 is good for Quebec and is actually progressive, and it’s not just a crude move towards secularism.
And I also don’t agree with your defence of Quebec’s secularism laws. While I agree that state and religion should be separated, and yes that secularism laws should be in place, some policies that have been applied, such as the recent Bill 21, banning of hijabs and crosses in certain levels of professions, is nothing more than a gesture, to just show a facade of secularism without actually enforcing it, all while disrespecting the people practicing their religion, and essentially placing limitations on people’s cultures. Once again, we can’t preach multiculturalism while doing the exact opposite of it: erasing people of their cultural identity, even if it’s just in public. And if anything, such actions only push the influence that religions may have over civil and state affairs into the shadows, hiding behind suits and hair free of religious symbols on their bodies. I understand that Quebec’s is heavily influenced by the same secular principles practiced in France, but they seem to have a healthier take on secularism, allowing the Sikhs to continue wearing their turbans in all settings, for example. I can understand the fear of losing that balance and giving control back to religious institutions, but gestures that do not improve secularism are pointless, period, and they are much less when the side effects are similar to the very thing Quebec seems to fear happen to themselves: an erasure of their own identity.
I understand that this is a pretty sensitive topic for Québécois, and I understand that I may not have the full historical context to properly understand the viewpoints and stances of Québécois, and perhaps I’m just too firmly rooted in the viewpoint of humanism, but I find it difficult to be persuaded that the recent policies that are essentially protectionist or, even, nationalist, are helpful for Quebec’s position in public discourse, especially when it comes to criticisms from the rest of Canada, or the other way around.
Yeah, there is historical context. Public schools used to be run by the catholic church. When Québec finally decided to end this, there was a slow transition. Nuns still taught in schools, but it became forbidden for them to wear their religious clothing and any religious symbols. Prayers were stopped in class. Crucifixes and religious imagery were removed. It no longer had its place in public schools. So when they’re saying that teachers can’t wear religious symbols in class, it’s really a continuation of this. Why would some students have special accommodations for them to do prayers if that privilege was removed for everyone else? Why would some teachers have accommodations for them to wear religious clothing when this was banned for everyone else? If they want to practice their religion, they can do so on their own time, in their own places of worship. Nobody’s stopping them from practising their religion, they just can’t do it in a public school. Or they can open their own private religious schools if they want.
Thank you for sharing context there.
I can understand removing religious symbols. Schools are places of learning, and if we want public schools to teach kids from different backgrounds and religions (or none for some of them), make them feel welcomed, and let their parents know that they aren’t being slowly coerced into a particular religion due to heavy exposure, then yeah, getting rid of religious symbols in schools can be a good way to remind others of the place they’re in, and also welcome those that aren’t of that religion. To those who aren’t of, say, a Christian background, a school without religious symbols will just appear as a school.
You could, however, argue the other way: keep those symbols as a reminder of what came before, so that we don’t set ourselves on that path once more. Teachers would be responsible telling their students that, and doing that, especially if it’s from a teacher with religious symbols on their bodies, would be a much clearer sign of what sort of society are we living in and want to achieve. And so we can do so through actions instead of symbolism, and I believe this would be much more effective than teaching history simply through words; you can point at the crucifix at school to say that that is exactly what has happened in the past.
But removing religious symbols on persons after removing them from public spaces? Arguable. If it’s proven that there’s a strong sense of reluctance to trust others due to not knowing how religious they are, and it runs contrary to how religious most people are in general, then yeah, it could be a useful move. Removing it from those in authority, sure, but I’d argue that “authority” might be impossible to clearly define. In any case, my argument against removing symbols on persons is that, without considering the relationship between people with regards to religion, it simply helps to hide people behind a secular facade, hiding their culture, what may be large parts of their identity, and perhaps most importantly, their convictions. I’m sure some already hide that, but it’s much easier for those to surface when they are allowed to hold those symbols.
I hope my rationale is a bit clearer now. And now to reply more directly to your reply.
Nuns still taught in schools, but it became forbidden for them to wear their religious clothing and any religious symbols. Prayers were stopped in class. … Why would some students have special accommodations for them to do prayers if that privilege was removed for everyone else? Why would some teachers have accommodations for them to wear religious clothing when this was banned for everyone else?
An important question here is this: are the majority of teachers still nuns? If yes, then we have a problem, and it has nothing to do with whether or not religious symbols should be allowed on a person in schools. The important question here would be: why haven’t we been able to train more teachers from different backgrounds? If no, then I can see relaxing the allowance for certain religious symbols as a possible move. Wouldn’t it be easier to show it to kids that people of different religious backgrounds, or even vastly different backgrounds, and live together peacefully and possibly become friends? Of course, I don’t deny that there may still be interracial or cross-religious strifes, but when those in authority show a good example, it becomes easier to rectify such behaviours.
What I’m trying to say is that strict secularism isn’t the only answer, and your line of thought seems to suggest that you are very much in line with that thinking (not saying the way you think is bad, to be clear). I apologize if that’s not the case.
Going back a little bit to the topic on strict secularism, I wonder what the end goal is. A public that is wholly stripped of any religiousness, and only in designated areas are they allowed to be practiced privately, out of sight of everyone else? Or something less than “wholly”, but still right about there? I find such a future somewhat hard to imagine not being… rather uniform. Most religions are practiced throughout the day in life and aren’t just in the prayer room (some religions don’t even have a prayer room, or necessary official prayers), and it becomes a part of their culture and identity. Telling them to not practice their religion is effectively telling them that that part of your identity is not allowed to be shown in public, especially when faith is not something that people should have negative feelings about or be ashamed of. Sure, we shouldn’t shove our faiths at everyone’s face, but not even something to show that “this is a large part of who I am” or “this is what reminds me of a part of myself”? If we allow tattoos, why can’t this be allowed?
And for those who are required by their religion to wear those symbols, eg Muslims (okay, there are arguments about the hijab, but that’s not a topic for me to go into) and Sikhs, what do you propose they do? Strict secularism effectively tells them to pick between the State and what’s likely a large part of their identity. Is that a choice that a State should ask its people to make?
Of course, an off-handed answer here is “well, if you don’t agree to these laws, don’t live here,” which is a valid answer in some cases. The case right here is effectively telling these people that “if you can’t give up on your religion, then leave”. How’s that not an institutional form of discrimination?And before you highlight the “public school” as the argument here, who’s to say that it wouldn’t change to include more places in the future? Maybe people working in banks should remove those symbols as well? They have strong control over who gets to borrow money, as well as hold onto others money. What about anyone in the financial sector? Insurance companies? Hospitals? Caretakers? And so for the people who can’t give up on their religion, they can’t work in these sectors, or get the promotion they wanted?
I hope you see the effects and potential consequences of such a scenario. Effectively, only a handful of people who follow specific religions would have enough freedom to live their lives in Quebec, and have the possibility of getting into powerful positions. Is that multiculturalism? How is this not, and so I ask again, institutional discrimination?
Or they can open their own private religious schools if they want.
As someone from a country where they’ve once created schools basically for each race, I can tell you that that’s a horrible idea. Not only does it create some kind of platform for competition between races, it divides the population, and will end up creating large pockets of a particular race who can live their lives with minimal interaction with other races, i.e. they have little to no understanding of other races. The government, then, had to tailor their policies to each region carefully without leading to feelings of discrimination. This scenario has led to constant little strifes between the races, and has once culminated in sectarian violence.
Edit: I feel like I should add this for context. I’m irreligious, and I can’t say I understand why people would follow religions, but I understand that different people have different ways of looking at life and have different internal needs, and I know that I don’t have a lot of needs. And so I believe it’s right for me to respect others’ choices when it comes to faith.
You could, however, argue the other way: keep those symbols as a reminder of what came before, so that we don’t set ourselves on that path once more. Teachers would be responsible telling their students that, and doing that, especially if it’s from a teacher with religious symbols on their bodies, would be a much clearer sign of what sort of society are we living in and want to achieve. And so we can do so through actions instead of symbolism, and I believe this would be much more effective than teaching history simply through words; you can point at the crucifix at school to say that that is exactly what has happened in the past.
Except, how would a person of faith accept to follow that kind of education if it contradicts their beliefs? I don’t think any religious person, who believes their faith is the correct and most righteous path in life, would want to teach kids about the dangers of religion on a society’s freedom.
But removing religious symbols on persons after removing them from public spaces? Arguable. If it’s proven that there’s a strong sense of reluctance to trust others due to not knowing how religious they are, and it runs contrary to how religious most people are in general, then yeah, it could be a useful move. Removing it from those in authority, sure, but I’d argue that “authority” might be impossible to clearly define. In any case, my argument against removing symbols on persons is that, without considering the relationship between people with regards to religion, it simply helps to hide people behind a secular facade, hiding their culture, what may be large parts of their identity, and perhaps most importantly, their convictions. I’m sure some already hide that, but it’s much easier for those to surface when they are allowed to hold those symbols.
Religious symbols in public spaces only applies to people with very specific roles in public services. Like teachers, judges, police officers, members of parliament, etc. Anybody else can wear whatever religious symbols they want anywhere, provided it doesn’t hinder things like official government ID photos, or being identified properly when voting for example, in which case it’s important that they remove them if it covers their face or hides their identity.
An important question here is this: are the majority of teachers still nuns? If yes, then we have a problem, and it has nothing to do with whether or not religious symbols should be allowed on a person in schools. The important question here would be: why haven’t we been able to train more teachers from different backgrounds? If no, then I can see relaxing the allowance for certain religious symbols as a possible move. Wouldn’t it be easier to show it to kids that people of different religious backgrounds, or even vastly different backgrounds, and live together peacefully and possibly become friends? Of course, I don’t deny that there may still be interracial or cross-religious strifes, but when those in authority show a good example, it becomes easier to rectify such behaviours.
No. There are some private religious schools, but even there it’s not nuns teaching to the students. And yes, we have been able to train teachers from all backgrounds. We have no problem with more progressive teachers who don’t mind working in a secular environment. As for the teaching about different religious or ethnic backgrounds, there are classes on that in elementary school about religion and moral values.
There has been one example that has really increased the discussion on this topic, and it’s the case of the Bedford elementary school in Côte-des-Neiges in Montréal where a ground of religious teachers started imposing their beliefs and their morals on everyone. They prevented girls from signing up to soccer because they claimed it was a boys’ sport. In another case, when a kid fell unconscious due to a malaise, instead of calling for medical help, they asked everyone to gather around the student and pray.
What I’m trying to say is that strict secularism isn’t the only answer, and your line of thought seems to suggest that you are very much in line with that thinking (not saying the way you think is bad, to be clear). I apologize if that’s not the case.
Well, my belief is that religion is a system of control of the population. It spreads like a cancer for the minds. It prevents rational thinking and scientific advancement. It also causes strife and violence. I am anti-religion. So yeah, I do have a certain bias towards secularism. I want people to be free, and if that means freedom of religion, that’s fine. But one fundamental right should be freedom FROM religion, which I never see mentioned anywhere because most people who are in power are almost always religious.
If anyone wants to practice their faith, they should be able to do so at home or in their places of faith. But, leave everybody else out of it.
Going back a little bit to the topic on strict secularism, I wonder what the end goal is. A public that is wholly stripped of any religiousness, and only in designated areas are they allowed to be practiced privately, out of sight of everyone else? Or something less than “wholly”, but still right about there? I find such a future somewhat hard to imagine not being… rather uniform. Most religions are practiced throughout the day in life and aren’t just in the prayer room (some religions don’t even have a prayer room, or necessary official prayers), and it becomes a part of their culture and identity. Telling them to not practice their religion is effectively telling them that that part of your identity is not allowed to be shown in public, especially when faith is not something that people should have negative feelings about or be ashamed of. Sure, we shouldn’t shove our faiths at everyone’s face, but not even something to show that “this is a large part of who I am” or “this is what reminds me of a part of myself”? If we allow tattoos, why can’t this be allowed? And for those who are required by their religion to wear those symbols, eg Muslims (okay, there are arguments about the hijab, but that’s not a topic for me to go into) and Sikhs, what do you propose they do? Strict secularism effectively tells them to pick between the State and what’s likely a large part of their identity. Is that a choice that a State should ask its people to make? Of course, an off-handed answer here is “well, if you don’t agree to these laws, don’t live here,” which is a valid answer in some cases. The case right here is effectively telling these people that “if you can’t give up on your religion, then leave”. How’s that not an institutional form of discrimination?
I think my last couple of paragraph answers your first question.
Also, like tattoos, religion is a choice. However, people who get tattoos don’t go around trying to convince others to get the same tattoos and that getting tattoos is the only path to heaven in the afterlife.
As for religious clothing, this is a whole other debate. In my opinion, religious clothing is not part of a culture. It’s imposed by the religion, or a religion-based government, or by a conscious choice by the individual wearing it. I doubt very much that the majority of the religious clothing that religious people wear are originated from their local culture. For example, Muslim women in Indonesia wearing the hijab, which was introduced by Arab Muslims. Or a newly converted European white women wearing the hijab. It’s not cultural, it’s religious. If a hijab is worn because it really is part of someone’s culture, then that’s totally fine. In any case, people are free to wear those in public as long as their net exercising certain public function, as I mentioned before.
And before you highlight the “public school” as the argument here, who’s to say that it wouldn’t change to include more places in the future? Maybe people working in banks should remove those symbols as well? They have strong control over who gets to borrow money, as well as hold onto others money. What about anyone in the financial sector? Insurance companies? Hospitals? Caretakers? And so for the people who can’t give up on their religion, they can’t work in these sectors, or get the promotion they wanted?
I hope you see the effects and potential consequences of such a scenario. Effectively, only a handful of people who follow specific religions would have enough freedom to live their lives in Quebec, and have the possibility of getting into powerful positions. Is that multiculturalism? How is this not, and so I ask again, institutional discrimination?
The state is supposed to be neutral to religion. So even if the state is secular, they can’t discriminate against people of any religion. Everyone is equal. However, in religious governments around the world, the same cannot be said. I’d rather have a secular government and secularism everywhere, where everyone is treated equally, than a religious place where people are treated differently because of their faith, level of faith, or lack of faith.
As someone from a country where they’ve once created schools basically for each race, I can tell you that that’s a horrible idea. Not only does it create some kind of platform for competition between races, it divides the population, and will end up creating large pockets of a particular race who can live their lives with minimal interaction with other races, i.e. they have little to no understanding of other races. The government, then, had to tailor their policies to each region carefully without leading to feelings of discrimination. This scenario has led to constant little strifes between the races, and has once culminated in sectarian violence.
That is really interesting. That’s basically an argument in favour of secularism. All I can say is that anyone who wants to live in Québec has to adhere to its core values. And that includes secularism.
people who get tattoos don’t go around trying to convince others to get the same tattoos and that getting tattoos is the only path to heaven in the afterlife.
I think that’s a very Christian-centric criticism of religion though. I grew up in a Muslim majority country, and never in my life has anyone tried spreading their belief in Islam to me. The Buddhists, arguable. Those who follow the actual religion never try to convince you to join, and only those in weird cults masquerading as Buddhism do.
In any case, I find this rebuttal rather insufficient and ineffective. If you call religion a choice (which it should be, but suffice to say it’s not the case everywhere in the world, but let’s suppose they do because that’s the assumption given proposed here), ie it is their choice to follow or not follow that religion, then you can’t criticize them for choosing to follow it, and much less so when they “choose” to follow the doctrines of the religion and wear those religious symbols.
And I do not agree that religion is wholly removed from culture, or the other way around. Rejecting the fact that religion can be part of the culture of some group is effectively rejecting history, in the sense that it’s rejecting all that’s come before them and culminated into who they are today. Sure, it was imposed on probably a huge portion of them, and many of which were effectively coerced into following the religion and following its doctrines or face expulsion (as is the way things used to work back then, even if we don’t agree with it with modern sensibilities). And let’s be fair, there are many who are still very much living in such tribal sensibilities, not necessarily by choice, but for survival. Not everyone has the privilege to just up and move away to some place else that fits their perception of the world, if they can even picture what that place would look like and function. So what are we gonna do here? Should we then tell em they should be free from religion? How’s that different from missionaries back then who spread religion then, except this time it’s for something else that we think is “better”? Religion was pretty new and thought to be right back then too.
That is to say, like it or not, that is who they are now.
We can talk about approaches to make them be more aware of the realities of religion, but I don’t think we’ll need to do that. The Internet has long penetrated many societies across the globe, and histories are shared when people interact. The idea of an irreligious world is known to them, or will be known to them, but whether they will accept it is not within our control. Worse, there are groups who are interested in keeping people religious, for the very reasons you are anti-religious. I digress.
My point of this whole conversation is pretty much centred around one thing: I think the heavy-handed approach to secularism exercised in Quebec is counterproductive, and some recent actions have seemed more form than substance. Furthermore, because of how heavy-handed and arguably insensitive approach it is (recent events that is), it has effectively, even if unintended, acted discriminatorily against people of certain religious groups, especially those whose religions require them to appear a certain way. In other words, it has indirectly benefited those who are irreligious or do not practice religions that require religious symbolism.
And so I quote your following reply:
The state is supposed to be neutral to religion. So even if the state is secular, they can’t discriminate against people of any religion. Everyone is equal.
and
All I can say is that anyone who wants to live in Québec has to adhere to its core values. And that includes secularism.
I hope you see a conundrum here: in an effort to be secular, Quebec’s policies have in fact, violated one of the very tenants of secularism. As I’ve mentioned in my previous comment, “Don’t like our rules? Don’t live here!” is not a universally neutral statement, not when your laws is effectively a form of institutional discrimination, which you seem to have not addressed.
From the later replies, I’m feeling like perhaps you might’ve mistaken me to be somewhat against secularism, or perhaps that I do not understand it. I think I’ve made it clear however: Quebec’s approach to secularism, as posited by its recent policies, is a strict form of secularism. I have nothing against that form of society itself, but I find that it’s rather incompatible with the current reality, which is that Quebec has people of different backgrounds and cultures. The Québecois is free to enact whatever forms of society they wish, but if it has discriminated against certain groups of people, I don’t see why we shouldn’t call it out and hope we can find something more satisfactory.
And just so I’m super clear as well: I am not in any way against secularism. In fact, I hope more states become secular. I hope my stance on religions is clear at this point for that to be a base reason, but my true conviction is that secular states are fairer. Simple as that. As for the approach, you can’t change minds by going at it the hard and insensitive way in this day and age. The US should be your prime example: just look at the pointless wars they’ve started since WW2.
Thanks again for your reply. I understand that this can be a frustrating topic, so please feel free to ignore my curiosity if it displeases you. That said though, I think you’ve already satisfied my curiosity with this reply, though not in a way I was hoping. Not a problem though.
Except, how would a person of faith accept to follow that kind of education if it contradicts their beliefs? I don’t think any religious person, who believes their faith is the correct and most righteous path in life, would want to teach kids about the dangers of religion on a society’s freedom.
First off, I do not think that one must believe that their religion, or religion in general, can do no wrong, in order to follow and practice it. That is not a pre-condition. There are different degrees of faith; some are devout, some simply tag along, and some fall somewhere in between. Talking about the potential dangers of religion is simply stating a fact, and to those who believe this goes against their faith, then something twisted is already in place. Of course, it’s not possible for us to test teachers on whether they would properly observe reality, but we should allow them to not talk about such a topic if it bothers them, or that they should simply be dissuaded before taking up teachers’ training.
In any case, as you’ve mentioned in another section of your reply, if there are enough diversity amongst teachers, and I don’t doubt that there are many who are irreligious or, like yourself, anti-religious, then I don’t see why it cannot be communicated effectively to children.
And unfortunately, I don’t think your reply answers or deals with the crux of that argument in that section: you can’t prevent people from being irrationally religious, and now they can more easily hide themselves behind the facade of secularism.
Religious symbols in public spaces only applies to people with very specific roles in public services. Like teachers, judges, police officers, members of parliament, etc. Anybody else can wear whatever religious symbols they want anywhere, provided it doesn’t hinder things like official government ID photos, or being identified properly when voting for example, in which case it’s important that they remove them if it covers their face or hides their identity.
Thanks for the clarification. I think it’s okay if the justification is for identification, which would otherwise be impossible if they must cover their faces. As far as I’m aware, most major religions don’t enforce such a rule, and if there are, not strictly so (I think Islam requires rather strict coverage of the face, but as far as I’m aware, that’s only true for either certain sects or areas).
I still do not agree on why religious symbols should be removed from public roles. The rest of this reply should make that clear, along with the previous section.
That said though, I can somewhat accept removing these symbols from roles that are in a position of strong authority, either through political power or violence. I’m much less certain on those of softer form of authority, and teachers fall in this category.
No. There are some private religious schools, but even there it’s not nuns teaching to the students. And yes, we have been able to train teachers from all backgrounds. We have no problem with more progressive teachers who don’t mind working in a secular environment. As for the teaching about different religious or ethnic backgrounds, there are classes on that in elementary school about religion and moral values.
Thank you for clarifying on this. It’s reassuring to hear that, though I’m somewhat surprised, though in a good way, that nuns don’t run the show in those religious schools.
There has been one example that has really increased the discussion on this topic, and it’s the case of the Bedford elementary school in Côte-des-Neiges in Montréal where a ground of religious teachers started imposing their beliefs and their morals on everyone. They prevented girls from signing up to soccer because they claimed it was a boys’ sport. In another case, when a kid fell unconscious due to a malaise, instead of calling for medical help, they asked everyone to gather around the student and pray.
Hmm…
For that first case with soccer, I don’t think that’s a religious view per se. It’s traditionalist for sure, but I wouldn’t say it’s rooted in religion. Ask an old Chinese person (the Chinese are mostly irreligious to lightly religious) and you’ll probably hear the same thing. But then again, you may know more here: it may have been proven that the perspective of these teachers were influenced by their religion.For the 2nd case, I can only say I’m appalled at what happened. But then again, in a school where we’ve simply banned religious symbols, who’s to guarantee this wouldn’t happen?
Well, my belief is that religion is a system of control of the population. It spreads like a cancer for the minds. It prevents rational thinking and scientific advancement. It also causes strife and violence. I am anti-religion. So yeah, I do have a certain bias towards secularism. I want people to be free, and if that means freedom of religion, that’s fine. But one fundamental right should be freedom FROM religion, which I never see mentioned anywhere because most people who are in power are almost always religious.
If anyone wants to practice their faith, they should be able to do so at home or in their places of faith. But, leave everybody else out of it.
I don’t think the freedom FROM religion needs to said here in Canada; many of us are already atheists. Not following any religion is, by itself, a kind of faith imo, not to some big person up in sky, or some prewritten destiny, but to believe that we humans have our own dignity and sensibilities, the ability to hold ourselves accountable, and to carve our own future.
Yes, many of those currently in power are religious, but at this point, at least from how things have been presented, it seems more ceremonial than definition, a footnote rather than the title, that they are who they are “oh and they’re also a Christian / Muslim / whatever”. There are some amongst the electorate that do care about that, but the voices are small, though some rare ones loud. There’s potential to devolve into what we see now in the US, however, but forcing secularism with a heavy hand will only serve to provoke them and direct them to more extreme measures.
You are most welcome to be anti-religious, and I too don’t have a good reason to believe religion should be around, and actually believe that we would all be better without it. But I think your stance is quite a bit more extreme. I wouldn’t say what you said in the affirmative, but would say that it’s a very exploitable vector to mobilize society for irrational actions. I think saying that religion is inherently anti-rational-thinking and anti-science is a stretch, though less so for the latter.
Faith is simply a double-edged sword. There were those who used it for social good, and there are those who used it for social bad. As with any systems that we humans come up with, once they’ve been around long enough, we as a species know more about the system we’ve made to both streamline and exploit it. Tribal hierarchy, royalty, religion, gangs, town councils, and as we would all know well, governments, and if you allow me to use non-political systems, trade, finance, insurance, even healthcare. Any system initially made with good intentions to serve humanity can end up being exploited by certain people for bad, and the longer its around, the more people who know how to exploit these systems. That’s why I have no qualms about your stance, but I wouldn’t say I fully support it, because all I see is that we’re simply stuck in this cycle, where we only try to tear down what ends up being broken, but never addressing why we tend to exploit them. I digress.
I think my comment is getting too long and Lemmy isn’t happy about it, so I’m going to cut it out into a separate reply.
Quebec should perhaps divest itself from equalization payments in order to display its dislike of Albertan oil production, a statement that pipelines will never be allowed through Quebec. That would help decrease the tension with other provinces.
Is Alberta Being Treated Unfairly?
Much of Alberta’s frustration comes from how the equalization formula is structured. Some aspects do deserve scrutiny, such as the exclusion of certain provincial revenues, particularly from electricity generation, which disproportionately benefits Quebec. The formula could be adjusted to ensure a more accurate reflection of provincial wealth.
But Alberta’s grievances often overlook a key reality: equalization is not the only way federal dollars flow between provinces. Alberta receives significant funding through federal programs, infrastructure spending, and social transfers. The province has also benefited from federal relief efforts during economic downturns, just as other provinces have in times of crisis.
Additionally, Alberta has maintained low provincial tax rates, meaning that if the province truly wanted to receive more federal transfers, it could raise taxes to boost its eligibility. The fact that it chooses not to is a policy decision, not evidence of systemic bias.
Source: https://canadianreturnee.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-equalization-payments
Also, it’s not Alberta that pays the equalization payments to other provinces. It’s actual individual income tax. It just so happens that the most wealthy Canadians live in Alberta. And there’s a lot more at play and you can learn about it by watching ths little 6 min video.
Alberta should shut it’s pie hole and spend its money protecting against being an abandoned tailings pond, rather than on party favours for oil execs.
I prefer a decentralized arrangement to be honest, as a BCer it’s my experience Central Canada thinks it is the center of the universe and the rest of us revolve around them. No thank you, we have very little say in this federation as it is, why would we want to weaken our standing further?
Some of the most insidious forms of decentralization have occurred at the level of politics. Provincial governments routinely engage in buck-passing and blame avoidance, attempts to pin responsibility on the federal government for matters under their own jurisdiction.
This is a significant problem but it won’t be solved by centralization. People in any organization, public, private, engage in shifting the blame on fuckups. It doesn’t matter where the real responsibility lies, as long as the audience buys the blame.
A decent chunk of his argument is simply to push back against this…loudly.
Finally, it is time to start calling out a lot of provincial grievance for the rank bullshit it often is.
Yes. And use tools they have to hold to account provincial politicians who engage in such misinformation.
Arguing for centralization on a platform that has a selling point of decentralization is incredibly funny to me.
