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.
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.
Ah yes. Consulting potential terrorists on what they think... always a key element of the legislative process.
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.
Anyone who follows the news (and one can assume that the people who worked on this bill delved deeper than just news coverage, but anyway) knows that the likelihood of having a terrorist attack committed on your soil is not related to your level of openness to religions X, Y and Z in the public sphere and officialdom.
I don't think one can draw any conclusions between the number of attacks in wide open vs. less open places. Lots of places that are very tolerant of displays of religions and highly accommodating to the point of bending over backwards in some cases, have seen horrible attacks.
Another thing is that plenty of countries (including several with Muslim majorities) have similar laws in effect.
I welcome the debate, but keep in mind these issues have been debated where I live for about a decade.
So yeah I can sometimes be impatient if I suspect people of being deliberately obtuse. (Not saying you necessarily were BTW.)
I admit I don't know what is going on over there. I suspect women with Burkas make locals uncomfortable. I assume that as western societies are becoming more secular now they have to deal with imported religious fundamentalists and that creates an issue. I could be wrong and I would welcome your input.
For example in England they teach sex education in schools. Some of those schools are now Muslim majority and the parents are protesting to delete the sex ed from the curriculum.
As I said, I suspect this is about Islam and to appear fair they have to include other groups. Correct me if I am wrong. Or who knows---------- maybe some people cannot stand the legacy of cultural Christianity in Western nations.
Ah yes. Consulting potential terrorists on what they think... always a key element of the legislative process.
That's a poor argument. Consideration of the results of actions taken should be at least part of government's considerations. public sentiments about something they'd like to do is always considered. Possible violent reaction to something else is another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Anyone who follows the news (and one can assume that the people who worked on this bill delved deeper than just news coverage, but anyway) knows that the likelihood of having a terrorist attack committed on your soil is not related to your level of openness to religions X, Y and Z in the public sphere and officialdom.
I don't think one can draw any conclusions between the number of attacks in wide open vs. less open places. Lots of places that are very tolerant of displays of religions and highly accommodating to the point of bending over backwards in some cases, have seen horrible attacks.
Another thing is that plenty of countries (including several with Muslim majorities) have similar laws in effect.
But this is a sound point. And (if they are indeed considering these matters at all - they may go ahead, and damn' the reaction) consideration of how such laws work in other countries would be something worth considering.
I admit I don't know what is going on over there. I suspect women with Burkas make locals uncomfortable. I assume that as western societies are becoming more secular now they have to deal with imported religious fundamentalists and that creates an issue. I could be wrong and I would welcome your input.
For example in England they teach sex education in schools. Some of those schools are now Muslim majority and the parents are protesting to delete the sex ed from the curriculum.
As I said, I suspect this is about Islam and to appear fair they have to include other groups. Correct me if I am wrong. Or who knows---------- maybe some people cannot stand the legacy of cultural Christianity in Western nations.
I think the issue 'over here' is complex and not helpful and would get away from the relevant issue of religious symbols to the political issue of race. I also feel that discussion of faith -schools and what happens when they try to replace state curriculum with a fundamentalist is one that could be left alone here, along with the Big Hint that not being sympathetic enough towards a Particular religion somehow implies that the people are being swept by some kind of historical culture -phobia, when in fact they do not care about Christianity, are not interested in church and at best, the ladies at least like the extra razzamatazz of a church wedding, even if that's the only time they ever enter a church.
My personal opinion is that this is wrong because, in effect, it tells certain people that they are not welcome to be employed by the province.
If that's how certain people interpret it, then good, because you probably wouldn't want such persons employed the State.
Do you not see the logical progression or out-growth under the current climate?
A Muslim goes to the government for services and only wants to deal with another Muslim; a christian with another christian; a Jew with another Jew and so on which is defacto segregation.
And, some might come to believe they were treated unfairly by someone of another religious persuasion.
That's the logical end result under the current climate, not just in Canada and the US, but globally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
It will be challenged and, I suspect, overturned or greatly modified.
I don't know much about Canadian law, but Canada is a signatory to the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It might take quite a few years to resolve, but that's one outlet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
And that fact alone makes Islam the most dangerous religion in the world today.
And that fact alone makes Islam the most dangerous religion in the world today. We MUST find a non-appeasement way to deal with it that removes the threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It wasn't dangerous 100 years ago.
What changed?
The promotion and spread of hate and the exploitation of ignorance among the young for decades in madrassas and mosques. The deliberate stagnation of knowledge at the level of the dark ages in Islam by fanatical religious leaders changed a culture that was among the leaders in knowledge to one of the most backward.
A Muslim goes to the government for services and only wants to deal with another Muslim; a christian with another christian; a Jew with another Jew and so on which is defacto segregation.
And, some might come to believe they were treated unfairly by someone of another religious persuasion.
That's the logical end result under the current climate, not just in Canada and the US, but globally.
Tribalism can occur along religion, nationality, and ethnicity. Tribalism almost always leads to war.
Quote:
It wasn't dangerous 100 years ago.
What changed?
That is true! What changed?
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.
