Quebec Muslim Badia Senouci told: 'change your religion'

While I criticize the PArti Quebecois on just about everything else. I do agree with their desire to want to keep society secular.

Good example of what a pack of mean-spirited little gutter fascists Quebec sovereignists really are. Did anyone really think that they'd be satisfied with merely chasing 60% of the original Anglo population out of Quebec and that everyone else would be safe from their endless drive towards an ethnicity-based tyranny? They've always been vicious totalitarian pricks and they always will be.

While I agree with the position of keeping Quebec secular I agree when it comes to individual people but there is no need to insult individuals. There is a difference between opposing a religious movement and insulting somebody in the street. Spitting in a kids face because he is standing up for his mother is disgusting thing to do.

I have several problems with this charter of Quebec values. My main objection is that I do not feel that this charter is being applied equally to all faiths. The charter names specific headwear that is to be banned. Almost all of this is aimed at Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc. The practice of covering the head has almost disappeared from the Christian faith. I know a few branches like the Amish, Mennonites, etc. still practice covering the head, however the vast, majority of Christians do not. It sounds to me like these new regulations are aimed at people who do not "fit the mold", if you will. If the courts in Quebec do not put a stop to this, the federal government should.

The separation of church and state is of course a wildly accepted viewpoint, one of which I adhere to and one of which I view as a fundamental building block of modern democracy.
However, I think when we speak of it, it is important as well to speak of the social contract in general, the reasons for it, and it's limitations.

I believe John Locke stated it best when he said in Two treatise of government:


In this lies the groundwork for freedom of religion and action amongst other things.
However, It is as important to note that we should be as free as is humanly possible without infringing on the rights and freedoms of others. Herein lies the problem, the freedom of others of course involves freedom of thought and expression. It is my assertion that it is impossible to be free without being free to act as you believe and to be free to express these beliefs. However, as the social contract was enacted as a means of protection from seclusion, the security of all is equally as important.

And so, when we consider what it means to have a separation of church and state, we must also consider what it means to be free, free to act and believe without threat to ones own security.

Our determination must weigh the value of the separation of church and state itself versus the value of our individual rights to be safe from not only the dangers of segregation but also the dangers of persecution from the state.

Because the social contract is itself an agreement of individuals and is based on a collective agreement to provide for one another without threat or persecution, in order to justify the persecution(i.e. removal of ones right to expression) It should first be demonstrated that this expression is a greater threat to the freedom of all than the segregation and persecution itself. I don't believe that the Quebec has made this case. In my opinion this whole charter of values is merely a distraction from the corruption and controversy that is currently taking place and for that reason, as much as I am a believer is secular government, I could never support such a measure.

*edit accepted, not excepted- doh

This isn't be way to do it though. Just because the state is secular doesn't give it the right to force people to deny their religious beliefs for their job.

I hope Quebec, when they pass this BS law, set aside a few hundred millions dollar for all they lawsuits from fired public employees they'll get.

The way the language/ethnic police behave in Quebec is an exact mirror version of the way the religious police behave in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. It's black-hearted bullying that only self-righteous ideological extremists, like Quebec sovereignists are, would engage in, and nothing else.

Send all the Sikh and Jewish doctors this way.....a physician wearing a turban or a yarmulke means nothing to me.

+5 for that one.

Isn't this the same story Jughead posted in the other thread somehow defending his "go back to where you came from" stance

Good point guys. I agree with the idea of the government attempting to keep their society secular meaning separation of church and state, but in this case with this demonstration this has descended into a bullying session.

This is the getting to be the very kind of thing that you are trying to avoid.

She should have shouted back...'Speak English!!'. Meh....my poorly repressed inner Presbyterian thinks they're(Muslims and Catholics) all going to burn in hell for being heathen bastards.

Separation of church and state is not the same as enforcing a secular society.

Society is not wholly composed of the state. There are many other actors that make up society as a whole.

While I agree in the total separation of church and state, I disagree that the state has any business enforcing secularism on society as a whole.

What religious people want to publicly wear or display in terms of religious expression should be up to them, not the state.

Let the government enforce secularism on itself, fine, but not the general public.