Any religious representation [on govermental buildings] is offensive to secularism. A cross is just two over lapping lines but it would also be offensive in this context. Although the word offensive is a bit much, I’ll give you that, I can understand why they want it gone.
It is a shame that secularism seems to disproportionately target Muslim women but it’s either a religious symbol or it isn’t.
It only seems extreme because we live in a christo-fascist state. I’m also only talking about when the state is involved. This would be fine on a private building, sorry if I wasn’t clear.
It only seems extreme because we live in a christo-fascist state.
Uh… Canada is christofascist? What? You have to be kidding me. That aside this is a welcome sign not Sharia law; this sort of “the state can’t acknowledge religion ever” logic benefits no one and excludes people who don’t fit the state ideal of Christianity/atheism—and that’s the thing: A secular state shouldn’t have an ideal when it comes to people’s religious beliefs. It’s just another way to indirectly assert nationalist beliefs and exclude minorities with a vague appeal to secularism to make it more palatable.
Any religious representation is offensive to secularism.
No, I don’t agree. Making laws with religious justification is offensive to secularism. A drawing that depicts a person wearing a piece of clothing traditionally associated with a religion is not offensive to secularism.
Any religious representation [on govermental buildings] is offensive to secularism. A cross is just two over lapping lines but it would also be offensive in this context. Although the word offensive is a bit much, I’ll give you that, I can understand why they want it gone.
It is a shame that secularism seems to disproportionately target Muslim women but it’s either a religious symbol or it isn’t.
Edit: Clarified first sentence.
This monument overlooks Montreal.
And it should be taken down as well. Unfortunately, secularism is applied unevenly.
“Unevenly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Yeah, I should have said that politicians use secularism laws to be racist fucking pieces of shit.
With that said, I still believe that our different level of public services should be secular, and we should start with Christianity symbols first.
That sounds more like China and USSR-style state atheism than secularism.
It only seems extreme because we live in a christo-fascist state. I’m also only talking about when the state is involved. This would be fine on a private building, sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Uh… Canada is christofascist? What? You have to be kidding me. That aside this is a welcome sign not Sharia law; this sort of “the state can’t acknowledge religion ever” logic benefits no one and excludes people who don’t fit the state ideal of Christianity/atheism—and that’s the thing: A secular state shouldn’t have an ideal when it comes to people’s religious beliefs. It’s just another way to indirectly assert nationalist beliefs and exclude minorities with a vague appeal to secularism to make it more palatable.
No, I don’t agree. Making laws with religious justification is offensive to secularism. A drawing that depicts a person wearing a piece of clothing traditionally associated with a religion is not offensive to secularism.