Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where are you getting this stuff from: 'gays defending Islam?' There's nowhere that is more hostile towards gays than the Muslim world, even if by all accounts, half of them are. They are not too brilliant on women, either, and quite a few women have said so -loudly - inside and out, even though you can always find burka -wearing women who tell us how good this is for them. I say to them. take it off for a month and then see how good it is for you.
In the western world (especially Anglosphere nations) many gays throw in their lot in with more traditionalist (or subtly radical) Muslims when it comes to minority vs. majority issues. Under the premise that all minorities must stick together. It's not hard to find examples of this if one follows the issues (such as Quebec Bill 21).
I agree that it's very perplexing precisely for the reasons you've giving. Similarly to how the attitude of many feminists on this boggles the mind too.
In the western world (especially Anglosphere nations) many gays throw in their lot in with more traditionalist (or subtly radical) Muslims when it comes to minority vs. majority issues. Under the premise that all minorities must stick together. It's not hard to find examples of this if one follows the issues (such as Quebec Bill 21).
I agree that it's very perplexing precisely for the reasons you've giving. Similarly to how the attitude of many feminists on this boggles the mind too.
See bold: In America is called intersectionality, perhaps is the same in Canada.
A system to calculate degrees of oppression based on minority issues. A Muslim is perceived to be as much as a victim as a lesbian white woman. A black woman has intrinsic double victimhood for being both a woman and black. A Muslim lesbian black woman gets triple victimhood.
The intersectionality classification tries to form a coalition of minorities to fight the oppressor. This is a bit political but I guess the thread is political. So I am perplexed as to why the group of oppressed people are singled out by the government. This will likely get reversed in court.
Oh and BTW I don't think Muslims are an oppressed group in Canada. There is discrimination against them on occasion like any other groups, but no large-scale oppression.
This is a bit political but I guess the thread is political. So I am perplexed as to why the group of oppressed people are singled out by the government.
Quebec Law 21 does not target any specific religious group in particular.
One might argue though that it's a buffer against creeping religiosity in officialdom, and that as a result it targets religious people in general.
In the western world (especially Anglosphere nations) many gays throw in their lot in with more traditionalist (or subtly radical) Muslims when it comes to minority vs. majority issues. Under the premise that all minorities must stick together. It's not hard to find examples of this if one follows the issues (such as Quebec Bill 21).
I agree that it's very perplexing precisely for the reasons you've giving. Similarly to how the attitude of many feminists on this boggles the mind too.
I think that's a fair statement. There is a sense that the oppressed should stick together against the power structure. In this particular case it is rather illogical, however.
In the western world (especially Anglosphere nations) many gays throw in their lot in with more traditionalist (or subtly radical) Muslims when it comes to minority vs. majority issues. Under the premise that all minorities must stick together. It's not hard to find examples of this if one follows the issues (such as Quebec Bill 21).
I agree that it's very perplexing precisely for the reasons you've giving. Similarly to how the attitude of many feminists on this boggles the mind too.
It would probably go off -topic to discuss these political tactics, but it sounds like a tactic (one minority siding with another), but that doesn't make Islam a haven for gays. Not when it wants to bury them up to the neck and beat in what's sticking out with clubs.
Neither does Atheism want to side with a religion that wants to lock us up - if we are lucky and they don't just slice our heads off. But we got accused of being apologists for Islam not half a day ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Quebec Law 21 does not target any specific religious group in particular.
One might argue though that it's a buffer against creeping religiosity in officialdom, and that as a result it targets religious people in general.
That sounds about right. The idea is to have a level social playing field that allows No privilege for any one religion over another. That means that you don't display religious tokens (if you can get away with one in your bodice, well and good) and of course you do not proselytize at work.
This of course hits harder those who dress up in coalsacks or funny hats to go to work, but that's the fault of their religion, not the law. They may fume, but religion can stay in the home, where they can costume up as they like, but they don't do it at work, at least.
That said, in the transition to a secularist society (a dream Ah gotta say seems to be receding a bit ) compromises can be made, - but it's a concession - not a right in Law.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-21-2019 at 06:53 PM..
No privilege for any one religion over another. That means that you don't display religious tokens (if you can get away with one in your bodice, well and good) and of course you do not proselytize at work.
This of course hits harder those who dress up in coalsacks or funny hats to go to work, but that's the fault of their religion, not the law. They may fume, but religion can stay in the home, where they can costume up as they like, but they don't do it at work, at least.
Your words sound so familiar. I think you are echoing the past. This is exactly what I mean when I ask: What will replace the current system? Could it be more oppressive? Could it take away freedom?
And you know what? I don't think this is due to atheism in a vacuum. There is more to the story.
BTW, I am not in love with Islam, but I have no issues with Muslim women covering the hair or Jewish men wearing the kippa. In this sense I have more compassion than you.
Moderator cut: Images from libquotes.com removed.
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-22-2019 at 06:21 AM..
Reason: Meaningless images removed.
Your words sound so familiar. I think you are echoing the past. This is exactly what I mean when I ask: What will replace the current system? Could it be more oppressive? Could it take away freedom?
And you know what? I don't think this is due to atheism in a vacuum. There is more to the story.
BTW, I am not in love with Islam, but I have no issues with Muslim women covering the hair or Jewish men wearing the kippa. In this sense I have more compassion than you.
I don't think it's atheism in a vacuum either- it is about using Ism to gain and keep power. in which respect Fascism and Stalinism were both using Dogma to control people. Atheism has no dogma. Neither is it in a vacuum. It is in humans and their lives when ism and dogma are removed and they can decide their own lives -within agree concensus law and morality.
You have fears about what atheism may become. I think in a humanist society it will become....extinct. it will no longer be needed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) compromises can be made, - but it's a concession - not a right in Law.
