Quebec enacts legislation to prohibit government employees from wearing religious items at work. (Christianity, services)
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.
Oh, but the government did consider the potential impacts of the law, consult and hold hearings with interested parties and held committee debates on this bill.
And how many potential terrorists attended this meeting to announce that they either would or would not react with violence?
My point all along has been that if you pass a law, regardless of how justified the law is, or how unjustified a violent reaction to it would be, you had better consider the potential consequences.
I would liken it to a US president who has been warned that if he insists on visiting a certain area, there will be extra security problems because that particular locale is filled with people who are extremely hostile to him (or her.) The president says "I should have the freedom to go wherever I want and if someone kills me, then the problem is the killer, not my travel plans."
Freedom/security has always been a balancing act, the less security you have, the more freedom you have, and vice versa. In the above example, the president must choose between exercising the freedom to travel wherever he or she wishes, and the potential of encountering someone who plans to do harm.
So, yes, Quebec should have the right to pass whatever laws it wishes regarding the public practice of religion. However, knowing that this particular law, if passed, has the potential to inspire a terrorist act of revenge or protest, means that the Quebec lawmakers must weigh the benefits of the law over the drawbacks which might accompany it.
If you're American (educated guess) would you now like my opinion on gun control in your country? How about economic inequality between rich and poor?
The discussion of politics is not allowed. I am a centrist and do not own weapons.
Thanks for the condescending remark about education.
As Peter Hitchens (an ex commie) says: It is impossible to have a discussion with some people when one sides side assumes they are 100% correct and the other side must be evil.
The discussion of politics is not allowed. I am a centrist and do not own weapons.
Thanks for the condescending remark about education.
As Peter Hitchens (an ex commie) says: It is impossible to have a discussion with some people when one sides side assumes they are 100% correct and the other side must be evil.
The discussion of politics is allowed, but should go in the politics forum.
As Peter Hitchens (an ex commie) says: It is impossible to have a discussion with some people when one sides side assumes they are 100% correct and the other side must be evil.
I don't deal in good vs. evil when it comes to these types of discussions.
Only to nudge people in the direction of contributions that are more fulsome than "oooh, this is a slippery slope" and "women with Muslim headgear are kinda sexy..."
Which of course people are free to make, I guess. Not that it will further the discussion much, though.
Only to nudge people in the direction of contributions that are more fulsome than "oooh, this is a slippery slope" and "women with Muslim headgear are kinda sexy..."
Which of course people are free to make, I guess. Not that it will further the discussion much, though.
That I can agree with you on. But we all have our moments.
That I can agree with you on. But we all have our moments.
Indeed we do.
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.