- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
You must log in or # to comment.
At my university (US), one of my calculus professors with a 150+ student lecture hall would repeatedly open his lecture with a slide showing his church and an invitation for students to join him there on Sunday. Absolutely inappropriate to proselytize a captive audience under his power to pass/fail them. There has to be some accountability for universities to stop this, but not to harass a person wearing a cross necklace or a koppel or a hijab. Shame this is legislated at such a high level instead of people just being professional and not a*holes.
Fuck religion but fuck stupid laws like this. Seriously this is just as stupid as the age verification stuff everyone he is mad about.
People have the right to do their rituals if it makes them feel good…
Not only that, but if you want to end religion, causing people to think their religion is under attack from the outside is the best way to isolate everyone in that religion and make them far more likely to stay in that religion for life.
What a load of crap
It’s to protect freedom, obviously.
No shit, that’s the Quebec government argument.
Hey you say that in French too, TOUTE SUITE
C’est l’argument officiel du gouvernement CAQuiste
En quebecois : Cette gang de vieux caliss de mononc’ tentent de nous faire à croire que c’est pour la liberté académique qu’ils font ça mais tout le monde sait que c’est des tabarnak de vieux mous autoritaires
Tout court esti
And I’m sure like french laicite this will be enforced unequally and will discriminate in order to target minorities.
It doesn’t need to. I don’t think anyone but Muslims is required to pray multiple times a day and need places to do so. It’s specifically meant to be an anti-Muslim law.
Just like making it illegal for anybody to sleep under a bridge. Surely that wasn’t aimed at the homeless, right?
Who tf does this help
Secularism? As long as it’s applied across the board - including Christians and others - this seems sensible.
This isn’t even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That’s the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don’t agree with theirs?
That’s no better than forced conversions…
Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others. That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism. So yeah maybe this would be for the best.
Let’s recap.
Literally, what I said was this:
This isn’t even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That’s the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
And you said this:
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
And now you’re trying to backtrack by claiming this:
I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.
No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn’t just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, “ending religions,” in your words).
The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally “institutions forcing their beliefs on others.” So, no, you’re just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.
Also,
In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn’t plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things “reality and science,” or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?
For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?
Who gets to determine what constitutes “science and reality,” and what constitutes “religion and belief,” particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?
Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined “reality”? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.
How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where “reality” can’t be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?
Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I’m not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you. A wall of text arguing semantics… you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity? Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
I’m also pretty confident that doubts and theories in science are unrelated to mysticism. If only in intents.
I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
That is your personal belief. You are advocating to force it onto others who do not share it. How is that different from forced conversion?
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
That’s what this law does, it specifically targets Muslims who need to pray during the day while pretending to be for everyone.
In some ways it will protect Muslim children as well, not being exposed to crucifixes and requiring Catholic schools to accept Muslim students.
Also, it could give the children a choice to engage in religious practices. Private religious schools should not exist at all, they are a tool for indoctrination and separating children from those with different beliefs is abusive.
That said, the PQ are racists and their goal actually is to discriminate against Muslims.
It would be sensible. But what’s the benefit?
Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things…
I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms.
And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons.
Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you’re overlooking the good that’s been done.
I don’t think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion.
Religions do call for a lot of violence don’t get me wrong. I’d even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion.
But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example.
Antisemitism doesn’t happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current “mostly chill” status does not negate the past suffering.
And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church.
The Quebec right wing, which paradoxically is secular and pro abortion.
Good. Delusions have no place in academia.
They’re not teaching prayer, they’re accommodating it.
You’re suggesting Canadian Universities should show religious people less respect than American prisons.
And government is the perfect entity to decide what groups get that label, they have never called Trans people “delusional” to go after them in Academia. /s
As an atheist, albeit an American one, I believe that we should restrict all worship and prayer to the privacy of one’s home, exclusively.
so, anti-freedom then? I can understand not allowing proselytizing, but this reads to me like de facto anti-muslim legislation.
If it disproportionately targets Muslims then you could also argue that they disproportionately use public spaces to practice their religion.
Even an Islamic country like Uzbekistan is cracking down on stuff like this out of fear for radicalism: https://asiaplus.news/en/2023/09/18/uzbekistan-authorities-tighten-measures-against-beard-and-hijab-wearing/
The West is way too naive about the growing influence of Islam in its politics and institutions. The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in most of the Middle East. Europe is just now starting to wake up to the threat of this insidious group.
If you ban all other public speech trying to sell me on anything, I might get behind it. Targeting religion specifically is a bit sus.
More about trying to throttle Christianity, but tbh religion is religion and they’re all bad.
Fuck them homeless people right?
There wont be homeless people if only atheists existed
Putting aside how dumb of a statement that is, will the state be mandating homes and forcing people into them? If they have to do that just to accommodate my private beliefs, how is that different than a prayer room in public? Should I be arrested if I’m homeless by choice or want to live out of a tent in the woods?
Just skip the argument to state enforced atheism and don’t pretend this line of thought is rational and secular.
Nobody told you about forcing someone to become atheist. I don’t want to waste time on such stupid people like you. Blocked
A well reasoned and logical reply. Completely air tight argument. We’ve got an enlightened free thinker over here!
There are enough of us that if we cared to we could solve it. We don’t.
The main problem is amoguses that support our enemies out of ignorance
I just don’t think that being right makes you more moral or compassionate. Those are separate vectors, there’s no useful kind/religious axis we can map here.
I do believe there is correlation. I can bet my life there is a correlation
I get that you’re very sure you’re right. But you’re one person. If I was going to choose to believe things based on how many people were very sure they are right, I’d still be Christian.
I left the church because I saw no evidence it made people better. I see no evidence that any other religion or lack of one does either. It just changes the excuses people use to be cruel to each other.
I mean hypothetical world if everyone was smart enough to not believe at least everything. If course my statement is close to impossible
Most homeless have mental health problems, its not really an issue of acquiring a house but them ripping out the pipes to buy drugs.
What’s all that prayer doing for them?
“The State’s jackboot is oppression…unless it is wearing my preferred socks!”
So places of worship are illegal too?
The problem behind this logic is that you will eventually have to contend with identity politics because without a visible structure for worship, people will inevitably begin to organise in secret and decentralise. Decentralised religion is worse and that’s how you create cults like the Nation of Islam and Klu Klux Klan who have nothing to do with the religions they originate from.
Then, there is the problem that every human is influenced by a set of beliefs or experiences that they are exposed to growing up. If they see and observe that the government is the sole power of the realm, then they will be incentivised to pursue and claim that seat of power if given the opportunity arises, and doing so knowingly means they are beholden to no law or people beneath their station.
If you had your way, you’d strengthen the church and religion. They thrive under oppression and all Abrahamics adore martyrdom.
As an atheist, just let them die on their own. Every year there are less and less of them.
Religion is cancer. Every and any.
Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one. When it’s used to harm non-believers especially it’s really easy to see this.
I wouldn’t give Christians or any other religion a pass on this, so I’m not giving Atheists one either.
Good thing your opinion means jack shit, because your basis is fundamentally flawed and incorrect.
Do you think it shows weakness to be polite to those you disagree with? I think it works better to approach people with respect if I want them to consider what I’m saying. It already feels like an attack when someone says you’re wrong, and I don’t want to harden minds against what I think is right.
I’m not always good at it, and I have spoken to people harshly often. It never produced anything but hard feelings on their part. I think it can be satisfying to be mean, and I was looking for an excuse to act in a way that’s less moral without feeling bad about myself. I think even if I was right, I usually didn’t need to be mean about it.
I think that it’s likely nothing I’m doing on this website is important enough to justify me being unkind about it.
Nobody has hurt more people than religion. They long ago lost any benefit of the doubt. We don’t have to be polite, or give them any power, because we’ve seen what they will do with it, every single fucking time.
So, No, fuck those religious whack jobs, we shouldn’t have to live OUR lives, based on THEIR delusions.
Start by taxing, and regulating, churches.
I don’t believe in the magic of Religion to make people moral. I also don’t believe in its opposite. People use religion or tradition to justify what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s not actually the scapegoat’s fault.
Wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion.
Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it might be a duck.
That doesn’t make atheism a religion, nor does atheism call for the persecution of anyone. Your logic is flawed and your argument is factually incorrect.
All ducks have legs, but not all birds with legs are ducks.
A muscovy duck isn’t a duck. Technically.
But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.
I can only infer from your statement that “Muscovy ducks aren’t technically ducks” which you’ve followed up by stating “anyone who says technically not a duck isn’t saying anything worthwhile”, means you’re telling me what you’re saying isn’t anything of worth.
Well, thanks, we already established that.
Why would I think this was worthwhile? You “Um Actually”-ed my post about the moral behavior of atheists who get religious about atheism.
This was only ever a long shot at best.
Get back to me when there are “discussion rooms” for practising atheists in public spaces 😆
If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. Whatever your belief of lack of it, I want to see you respected and treated well.
No, it’s not.
Not watching football isn’t a “football stance”.
Not eating pork chops isn’t a “pork chop stance”.
Not drinking jagermeister isn’t a “jagermeister stance”.
Not reading Spider-Man comics isn’t a “Spider-Man stance”.
Not being religious isn’t a “religious stance”.
Not doing something isn’t a stance on that something, that’s goofy
d’awww. Look who thinks they know stuff
So cute
Vegans
Nice word-salad.
Thanks.
If whatever you believe means you feel you have the right to be unkind to people who believe otherwise, it’s problematic. Even if you want to hold onto a different definition of whatever it is you believe, if you use it as an excuse to be unkind it’s still a problem. It’s not the label that’s the problem, it’s the behavior.
If you end up acting just like them, why should anyone believe you’re any different?
Very “it’s not a warcrime if it’s not wartime” energy.
Sounds something that a nazi would say.
It’s the same tolerance paradox. I don’t have to be kind if your “beliefs” create suffering.
I’m honored that you conceded the argument, if not gracefully.
Text comprehension isn’t your strongest side, is it? But then again, religion has been suppressing education for centuries, so it makes sense.
Though obviously I’d prefer a more civil exchange of ideas I can’t deny the ego boost of seeing someone give up. Once it’s down to name calling, it means you gave up on arguing your point.
When people have the faith in their ideas to agree to disagree, they don’t need to resort to name calling. People feel threatened and lash out. It’s understandable.
What problem does this solve?
It tells religious freaks that we don’t have to live OUR lives based on THEIR delusions.
By denying them theirs?
I’m not denying them their delusions, they can do whatever they want, they just don’t get to make me live by them.
But you already didn’t have to live your life by them…
Of course we do, whenever the government bows to their ludicrous demands, which is ALWAYS. Despite the fact that the Constitutionally expressly forbids it, our nation’s culture and society have been crafted around Christianity, simply because these screwballs are so relentless, that lazy politicians (redundant) find it easier to give them what they want, than fight the endless culture war with them.
And since they don’t have to pay taxes, or account for their fraudulent fund-raising activities, they have plenty of money to buy politicians to influence the government to favor them.
The Constitution’s official stand on religion is Atheism. We need to enforce that.
Quebec is in canada, champ.
The lack of oppression, there are people who got too comfortable with the illusion of power. Hence, they have to generate misery while they still can.
No, I think is more absurd. They look at the US and overcorrect. There’s a reasonable middle ground where a grey area in processing works itself out after a few generations. That is totally skipped with this volatile approach.
Instead of feel-good measures like this, they should TAX mosques, churches, temples, prayer sheds, whatever. (it feels good to ME, anyway)
In USA, religions pay virtually nothing, with many more benefits than any secular charity or non-profit.
There’s a whole slew of non -profit orgs that would feel pain before religious ones were taxed at any reasonable level.
This does remove some direct funding, in the public funded orgs won’t have to set aside building space for religion. Students will also have access to different/closer/better schooling if the Catholic schools are not allowed to select students based on their religion, which is great and I don’t know how they were allowed to do that based on our Charter of freedoms
i imagine a situation where churches could keep non-profit status as long as they provided some tangible service to the community. homeless feedings and things like that. but there’s no universe in which a religious non-profit should get more privileges than a non-religious one
Based
Good, now ban religion altogether, preferably by recognising it as the mental illness that it so clearly is.
You can’t ban it, don’t be silly.
Do you really want THE STATE to have the power to ban belief systems?
Religion isn’t a belief, it’s a delusion.
Bad law. There will be consequences for this law.
“If you are a minority, specifically one that has to pray 5 times throughout the day, you don’t get university anymore.”
- Fr*nce.
Ah yes. Quebec, France
Canada is fr*nch in my eyes.
Quebec isn’t in France but given that the only other country I hear about laws like this from is France, it’s still hard not to see it as a French culture thing (specifically a tendency to pass secularism laws that barely affect Christians but have larger implications for people of other religions.)
Lemmy “leftists” out here defending religion at any cost
I don’t hate random people believing in their religion, I hate people using religion as an excuse to force laws that oppress minorities.
