Quebec will now ban street prayers as the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) “super-minister” of identity, Jean-François Roberge, has just passed his bill to strengthen secularism.
Interesting to see so many comments defending religion, especially one particular religion. Anyway, IMO religion should be always a private matter. If you don’t like certain rules or laws, nobody is preventing you to leave and be happy somewhere else. So, if a Christian is not happy in a Muslim country due to restrictions, the person can move to a Christian or secular country. If a Muslim is not happy in a basically Christian or secular country, there are many Muslim countries, which will allow him or her to follow the rules of the religion. So, everybody is happy. Hence, what is the deal here?
If this people are coming to be free from their religion and to assimilate to the new country, I think that many people would have the least problem - me included. Unfortunately, there are groups, even not that small, who you hear more often about that they make troubles. Why are Asians so calm?
Please show me where, in the New Testament, Jesus explicitly said that people should or should not have abortions. He never spoke about it directly. In contrast, the hadith literature contains explicit discussions about how unbelievers should be treated and how society should be organized according to religious rules: Sahih Muslim 1767: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah…”. So, you need to fight people, correct?
Calm down. I am sorry if it seeemed like I am targeting Christianity, I did not mean for it to come out like that.
People say “If you want that, then go to US” a lot while discussing trans rights in my home country too and it angers me equally. In fact the whole reason I replied was that your comment reminded me of that logic.
I don’t really want to debate about “Islam vs Christianity.” Fight between two monotheist, Abrahamic religions feels off. Since I am Maturidi too, arguing in favor of random hadith kinda contradicts my beliefs.
I could at most research if the hadith was real or gossip, and whether it was said during wartime as command or during sermon as religious teaching etc.
Legal systems on the other hand are about reasoning and rhetoric so I am more comfortable talking to you about them. Don’t have to worry about what people more than a thousand years ago did lmao.
Both giving random advantages to the majority religion, and giving random disadvantages to minority religions are inconsistent, and unjust to the minority. It’s against the legal rationale.
Not including religion in law also includes tbe “my religion says I can slap my wife argument.” Legal system should NOT take religion into account when rightfully punishing domestic violence.
Hope this clears it up? Again, I am really sorry, I did not mean to accuse Christianity. Fren? :3
Just kidding. I read your comment history talking about bombing Palestine. Zionist shit. Blocked.
Your opinion is a bit of a paradox, isn’t it? If religion was always a private matter you wouldn’t be able to go to any country and tell what religion that country is.
Part of the problem is that a few religions tell their followers that they own specific land, so they are competing to have exclusivity of that land instead of just going somewhere else.
The expansion of civilisations has always encroached on religions as well. You basically have to choose a point in time to say “starting now religions are allowed to exist in the countries they are already in.” Should the aboriginal Australians just go somewhere else if they don’t like the multicultural/multi-religiousness of modern Australia? What about native Americans if they don’t like capitalist Jesus?
I think the key issue is secularization. Many European countries went through long historical periods where religion dominated politics and public life, followed by centuries of conflict, reform, and eventually stronger separation between religion and state. Modern secular democracies in Europe are partly the result of learning from that history.
Not all religious traditions or societies went through the same process. In some places, religion still plays a central role in law, politics, and daily life, hence it is treated not just as personal belief, but as the basis for governing society.
That does not mean religion itself is uniquely bad or that every religious society behaves the same way. There are also belief systems deeply tied to culture, philosophy, or nature - for example Aborigines or certain Buddhist traditions - that historically were less focused on universal expansion or religious conquest.
The point is not „religion should disappear”, but that societies require separation between religious authority and state power. BTW, Jesus wasn’t a capitalist. If you would be like Jesus, you would be broke today.
Edit: removed redundant text from previous version.
Interesting to see so many comments defending religion, especially one particular religion. Anyway, IMO religion should be always a private matter. If you don’t like certain rules or laws, nobody is preventing you to leave and be happy somewhere else. So, if a Christian is not happy in a Muslim country due to restrictions, the person can move to a Christian or secular country. If a Muslim is not happy in a basically Christian or secular country, there are many Muslim countries, which will allow him or her to follow the rules of the religion. So, everybody is happy. Hence, what is the deal here?
“Just give up your home, job, and family and likely become a refugee if you don’t agree with the prevailing religion. What’s the big deal?”
If this people are coming to be free from their religion and to assimilate to the new country, I think that many people would have the least problem - me included. Unfortunately, there are groups, even not that small, who you hear more often about that they make troubles. Why are Asians so calm?
“Abortion is illegal now because it’s unchristian. If you are not a devout Christian, move.”
Please show me where, in the New Testament, Jesus explicitly said that people should or should not have abortions. He never spoke about it directly. In contrast, the hadith literature contains explicit discussions about how unbelievers should be treated and how society should be organized according to religious rules: Sahih Muslim 1767: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah…”. So, you need to fight people, correct?
Calm down. I am sorry if it seeemed like I am targeting Christianity, I did not mean for it to come out like that.
People say “If you want that, then go to US” a lot while discussing trans rights in my home country too and it angers me equally. In fact the whole reason I replied was that your comment reminded me of that logic.
I don’t really want to debate about “Islam vs Christianity.” Fight between two monotheist, Abrahamic religions feels off. Since I am Maturidi too, arguing in favor of random hadith kinda contradicts my beliefs.
I could at most research if the hadith was real or gossip, and whether it was said during wartime as command or during sermon as religious teaching etc.
Legal systems on the other hand are about reasoning and rhetoric so I am more comfortable talking to you about them. Don’t have to worry about what people more than a thousand years ago did lmao.
Both giving random advantages to the majority religion, and giving random disadvantages to minority religions are inconsistent, and unjust to the minority. It’s against the legal rationale.
Not including religion in law also includes tbe “my religion says I can slap my wife argument.” Legal system should NOT take religion into account when rightfully punishing domestic violence.
Hope this clears it up? Again, I am really sorry, I did not mean to accuse Christianity. Fren? :3
Just kidding. I read your comment history talking about bombing Palestine. Zionist shit. Blocked.
Your opinion is a bit of a paradox, isn’t it? If religion was always a private matter you wouldn’t be able to go to any country and tell what religion that country is.
Part of the problem is that a few religions tell their followers that they own specific land, so they are competing to have exclusivity of that land instead of just going somewhere else.
The expansion of civilisations has always encroached on religions as well. You basically have to choose a point in time to say “starting now religions are allowed to exist in the countries they are already in.” Should the aboriginal Australians just go somewhere else if they don’t like the multicultural/multi-religiousness of modern Australia? What about native Americans if they don’t like capitalist Jesus?
I think the key issue is secularization. Many European countries went through long historical periods where religion dominated politics and public life, followed by centuries of conflict, reform, and eventually stronger separation between religion and state. Modern secular democracies in Europe are partly the result of learning from that history.
Not all religious traditions or societies went through the same process. In some places, religion still plays a central role in law, politics, and daily life, hence it is treated not just as personal belief, but as the basis for governing society.
That does not mean religion itself is uniquely bad or that every religious society behaves the same way. There are also belief systems deeply tied to culture, philosophy, or nature - for example Aborigines or certain Buddhist traditions - that historically were less focused on universal expansion or religious conquest.
The point is not „religion should disappear”, but that societies require separation between religious authority and state power. BTW, Jesus wasn’t a capitalist. If you would be like Jesus, you would be broke today.
Edit: removed redundant text from previous version.