Secularism should only apply to the government and how it operates its programs, institutions, and laws. It is about neutrality of the government, it should not be a mandate for the citizens. The way the USA constitution works is that it provides restrictions and rules about how the government works and what it can do, restricting the government from interfering in the rights of the citizens. What it doesn’t do is tell citizens how to live. The laws congress and the states come up with are the rules for citizens and these rules must comply with the constitution. I do not know about Canada’s constitution, but I imagine that it is similar. If there is a protection of religious freedom, then this law is unconstitutional. But to restrict prayer by the citizens in public, does nothing but oppress. It will lead, rightfully, to rebellion by the people.
It is never a good idea to restrict things to this extent.
Yeah, no. There’s no more rule of law here. Even before Trump’s latest election, a movement called the Convention of the States has been trying to take over enough state legislatures to call a constitutional convention so they can “legally” change the Constitution to allow for their “unitary executive theory.” “Democratically elected” (with maximum voter suppression) dictatorships like Russia and Hungary are “so hot right now!”* among fascists. All Amendments except the 2nd will be eliminated. And it’s not just evangelicals who are the problem: Opus Dei cult Catholics have the Supreme Court.
It's the same end goal, different tact. Conservatives in both places want to eliminate religious freedom for non-Christian minorities, ensuring Christianity remains systematically favored. In the U.S., they are doing it by expanding the rights of all religions but in a way that in practice heavily favors Christians. In Quebec, they are doing it by reducing the rights of all religions but in a way that in practice heavily disfavors non-Christians.
...He says, as he demands the right to argue for atheism on the sidewalk...
Look it shouldn't be about *what* you argue for, it should be about *how* you argue for it. Harassing behavior that disrupts public use of public property: no. That's it.
I am the same way about coffee, but I think you sell yourself short. I read your post on Captain Cassiday a few days ago, before you had your coffee. I was quite impressed. I can not imagine how anything could make your comment more clear or erudite. Keep up the good work!
Thank you very much for the lovely compliment. I really appreciate it.
I usually write what I write in the morning, while I am waking up. It’s part of the process of waking up for me now. I used to wait till the middle of the day to write stuff. But this way I can focus early.
Keep in mind that for White Christian Nationalists “Christian” is code for White. “Christian nation” is code for “White ethnostate.” Remember, darker-skinned people were portrayed as “barbarians” and “savages” and “heathens,” in need of the brutality of colonialism, enslavement, and missionization. It’s really not about religion—it’s about the cult of White Supremacy.
[This feels in many ways like a Bizarro World version of what’s happening in the United States.]
Yeah, it's not though.
At the root of both is white people freaking out at the public existence of The Other and worried that one day they won't be on top of the hierarchy of power they've built and maintained for centuries.
He deserved it. Kirk had it coming. He asked for it, now he got it. And BTW, what's going on with the reaction to Kirk's murder is actually a major cover up orchestrated by that Stupid Idiot to force Kirk to keep his mouth shut about the Epstein files. Here's what I think happened.
Stupid Idiot Dump deliberately ordered Kirk to be killed and is making it look like an American hero has tragically fallen while Kirk was in fact a vile, hate preaching, close ally of Dump who threatened to expose Dump's involvement with Epstein. Thus, leading Dump to order a hit on him while he fakes a national mourning period to deflect from his heavily involvement with Epstein and to cover his crime against his former ally Kirk.
Nobody deserves to be murdered for voicing ideas, not even toxic ones.
No this wasn't some right-wing conspiracy to detract from Epstein stuff. Maybe it's not a liberal - maybe it's personal, or for publicity, or some other weird reason - we won't know until we find the guy. But I would bet heavily against any sort of organized false flag operation as being just too conspiracy nut job out there.
I fully agree with the free speech defenses now making the rounds by conservative pundits. However I would also fully agree with YOU and probably many of the other posters here if you say that they are being manipulative and insincere about it. They are. They don't mean it, and they have no intention of actually defending speech they disagree with, only speech they do.
Both libs and conservatives are behaving in ways that encourage political violence.
-On the left, folks like you saying 'he deserved it' encourage it. FIRE's surveys on campuses showing that >60% of students think violence is a justified response to offensive speech indicates that a lot of liberals support it, if not encourage it.
-On the right it's much more institutional; SCOTUS saying the President can't be charged with crimes encourages it. The President pardoning the January 6 protestors encourages it. ICE ignoring judicial orders to keep someone in the country encourages it. Policeman beating suspects into a coma or killing them and not getting prosecuted encourages it. All of these institutional "we allow violence it when it's ours" sorts of behaviors send the message to the public that political violence is acceptable and legitimate, if done when you're in charge or to get in charge. For violence like this to end, both libs and conservatives have to start punishing and speaking out against *their own* when it happens. As long as the tribes ignore/excuse their own violence and only get horrified at the other tribes, it will continue. Because that's telling ones' own tribe members that it's okay as long as you do it for the right reasons.
Speech and violence do 𝘯𝘰𝘵 exist on two separate planes. Speech 𝘪𝘴 violence, when the speaker has enough of an audience and a will to use it for evil. Which Mr. Kirk did. He had more blood on his hands than leaked out of his neck. His 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 were weapons, and he intended to keep holding down the trigger until he ran out of ammunition. His continued existence was, absent even the slightest fucking whiff of hyperbole, a mortal threat to millions of people, myself included, because people listened to him, and acted on his words, to effect a campaign of disenfranchisement and persecution the like of which hasn't been seen in generations.
At what point would speech become sufficiently harmful, in your eyes, to justify violence as a response? Goebbels, to my knowledge, never personally murdered anyone- and yet, millions of people died because of 𝘩𝘪𝘴 speech. It seems obvious to me that the judicious application of a bit of violence in that case might've saved an awful lot of people an awful lot of misery. Do the victims have to be in their graves, before a violent reply to harmful speech is warranted? How long the butcher's bill?
Ericc, there is a hell of a lot riding on this outcome. If the FBI, et al, are not able to track down and capture the guilty unbelievably good marksperson, then there will be even more conspiracy theories that pop to the surface.
This will for a long time undoubtably draw much attention away from the Trump/Epstein File release debacle. And just who would be pleased about that ?
I believe that anything can happen in the Untidy States of America, and especially under the command of Arch Criminal US President Donald Jesus Trump and his team. E.g. WTF … The Department of War.
P.S. any leader of any country that can kill eleven people riding in an open boat in international waters because they don’t like those people, well they are very likely to kill anybody, anywhere, anytime.
We are not yet at the stage where violence is the answer. And as awful as Charlie Kirk was, and as much as he deserved to be dead, one, he did not deserve to be killed. Two, the ones that will are the ones who use violence (and weaponizing the law) against those peacefully protesting
Not even Stephen Anderson deserves to be killed. Dead, yes. And I will rejoice, and might even make a pilgrimage to piss on his grave and maybe more.
My feelings on hate speech call for arrest not murder, but it needs to be a carefully thought out decision whenever we move the line between permitted and restricted speech (like political ads should be). And, I agree, both men had crossed any reasonable line.
They think that that oppression is necessary because they think one religion in particular is an existential threat to their secularism. Too bad they've targeted the wrong one. 65% Christian, 5% Muslim.
On a per capita basis, it is the biggest risk by a long shot. I agree it's not the biggest share of population today in NA, but it is a muscular aggressive religion that does not have conflicting metaphors to interpret - not like Xtianity. 5% is where we need to set boundaries. Trust our ex-muslim community for advisement.
Again, just listen to the most popular Dawah folk online. They tell you bluntly about the intent to dissolve western society along with secular liberal democracy - that's man's law, not gods law.
It reminds me when France passed a law forbidding face coverings (we all know the target was Muslim women). Guess what happened a few years later ? COVID-19. Way to self-own.
Except, of course, it's not truly secular. It's Christian privilege masquerading as secularism, in much the same way as our own Disaster Pumpkin's racism masquerades as being anti-crime.
I would love to see religion disappear entirely. On its own worthless merits. Sometimes I have been so angry at evangelicals, I have wished they and their ilk could be legislated out of existence, but:
1) Like that will ever happen
and,
2) bensnewlogin's mention of Prohibition above. That didn't work out so well.
This measure sounds like it will create more problems than it solves. While I get purely sick of performative public prayer by politicians, I don't think it should be illegal. Not being able to force anyone to participate in a public prayer against their will should be enough.
Why do people want me to think so early in the morning when I’ve just woken up and I’m on my 1st cup of coffee? On the other hand, why is this question just like this dispute?
The answer is actually pretty easy. The proponent of this bill do not want people to think about it, they want them to react to it. And by react, I mean to put the react back into reactionary. And actually, this comment is pretty funny in a reactionary sort of a way.
Using freedom of religion to strike at the heart of religion, but actually using religion as a cover for political aspirations. Where have I heard of this before? Some huge country south of Canada, somewhere, uses religion in that way. Under the guise of the freedom of religion, religion attacks religion when it is really about something else— power, money, and fear— a path to power and money. But religion is what you use to justify what you cannot justify by any other means.
“ For months now, the caquistes have been looking for an issue that would help them rise from the dead. They may have found it by this new attack on Quebecers’ fundamental rights.” that’s very French humor. We have the CAQ party, members of which are “caquistes”. Which is a pun on the word KAKISTOCRACY— the rule of the stupid people.
And here we are..
I am absolutely no fan of religion, especially the kind of religion that wants to fornicate with the state to advance religious goals like Dominionism, or non-religious goals that have the same stench as dominionism because they are really the same thing: power and money.
If they were truly concerned about people inserting their purely theological concerns into the civil law that governs everyone, the opponents of doing that would simply say as much. The bestest country in the whole wide world needs a strict separation of church and state, which we no longer have. We would not be banning public prayer, because that would be banning religion, which would be just the sort of asshole thing that people who want to take over everything would do. And the people who use religion to justify it want exactly the same thing.
The problem is, no one wants to call it what it is, because that would give the game away. The game is not which flavor of God do you wish to believe in this week. The game is power and money.
The ugly just keeps coming and coming and coming. And religion is exactly the horse it’s riding in on— on both sides.
Wouldn’t it be nice if people actually believed in freedom of religion?
Umm... I'm no expert on Canada or Quebec in particular, but I thought their biggest "threat" to secularism was Catholicism.
While I would like to see both Islam and Catholicism die, it should be of starvation not an attempt with a bazooka or even a knife. And it won't work, persecution has never destroyed a movement, indifference does (at least not without a *lot* of murder)
Analysis of the 6 pages short version. I will edit my post when necessary.
"Une consultation publique en ligne s’est déroulée entre le 31 mars et le 8 juin 2025. Plus de
500 réponses ont été collectées et analysées."
An online public consultation was available from March 31st to June 8th. More than 500 answers were collected and analysed.
That doesn't seems a lot.
40 reports had been collected and the questions were also sent to some government agencies.
48 half lead interviews between March 14th and July 3rd, including 1 to 4 people (Whatever it means)
Bla bla bla other interviews with secularism experts, cities/towns halls. More bla bla.
About 10 lines on how Québec dechristianised.
More paragraphs about the history of Québec secularism and this nugget. I will let you make your opinion.
"Despite this legitimate foundation, there are still hurdles. Some concepts, like a multicultural vision, weaken the balance desired by Quebec legislators. So, an expansive application of religious accomodations, brought by this vision, an over valorisation of religion is sometimes too present."
4 different bullet points about secularism : separation of church and state, no religious expression in government (I guess it means prayers before a meeting and not funding of religious schools, among others), gender equality with a direct mention of patriarchy (I feel it's a dig toward Islam more than anything else), freedom of and from religion.
It's mostly about schools here.
The part about visible religious signs is mainly about preschool and kindergarten and they made it "about a need for children to be able to see the face of the adults to socialize correctly"
The report recommend that the religious accomodations for religious holidays be reinforced because "the absence of several employees at the same time is a burden for the others".
The problem is school vacations are mostly based on a christian religious calendar, so of course it can't always works for religious non christians.
4 other bullet points : The need for a religious accomodation should respect the laws defining secularism, any demand to meet a employee of the same gender shouldn't be based on religious preference, no religious accomodation that would impact the public curriculum and it's teaching (I approve of this one), no more collective prayer rooms in junior high, they should be replaced by spaces for one or two people, the potential passing of a law that would allow colleges to refuse any demand for a prayer room.
And somewhere in this 6 pages, the spiel about the sacro-sanct French language. If you wonder what that has to do with secularism, welcome to the club.
The public prayer violates the commandment Jesus gave during his Sermon on the Mount where he tells his followers,
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew 6:5-6 NIV
I don't bother, but the pervert has more important things he should be focused on, like lowering the fertility rate worldwide, resurrecting that mana stuff, and having a long chat about "proportional response" with his "Chosen People".
I live down south on US 63 from Iowa, and I also have no palm trees. But I thought Boreal was referring to palms of hands that get hairy from masturbation.
Islamophobic Christian Fucking Privilege. That's all. The fools in charge think the only religion is Christianity, and therefore secularism means neutrality between non-religion and Christianity, not neutrality towards all religious viewpoints.
“A blanket ban would stigmatize communities” This is obviously what the Quebec government intends as their constant conflating of Islamists and Muslims. I have no problem with anyone wearing a kippa, turban, cross, hijab etc. Praying in a public square is also not an issue unless you expect me to join in. (no one has ever asked, so I suspect that’s a nonissue too).
I have to wonder how often that’s really a thing that the government has to make a BFD about it.
You've never had that neighbor who complains about your garden border being the wrong shade of white, or the fact that you were grilling in a 4x6 balcony when the city requires it be 5x6?
A bunch of Muslims met in a public park, with a permit, and prayed. Then they met in front of a cathedral and did the same (but note the cathedral staff had no problem with it, so it doesn't sound like it was at all disruptive). I'm sure there were plenty of uptight passers-by who got upset about it, because they get upset about just about anything that doesn't fit in with what they themselves do on a Tuesday.
The government, of course, could just ignore them. But why defend rights when you can collect a few more votes by feeding the outrage?
In a community in Georgia where I once lived, it was not uncommon to see people linking arms to form prayer circles and praying out loud in the local post office, hardware store, grocery store, what-have-you. I found it weird, but other people didn't even seem to notice. Such nice Christians and all, isn't that sweet.
Now if the praying folks had been Muslim, I imagine the reaction would have been quite different.
Eye for an eye just leaves everybody blind. Despite your justified anger, becoming them isn't the solution. I'm not saying you need to forgive them, but work to the point where you can ignore them. (And that *is* going to take some hard knocks to get them to ignore us, but persecution isn't the answer)
I hve been denied my rights by them. I have been told it is a shame I failed at suicide by them. Go ahead and give them succor. I will give them what they have given me.
Their book of holy babble shows "Give unto others as they have given unto you.
You were denied your rights by Canadian Muslims protesting outside the Notre-Dame Basilica in Montreal in August 2025?
Or you were denied your rights by some other religious group, a long time ago, far away, almost definitely not the same people, but you think collective punishment of religious people is the right response? Should I punch the next person I see wearing a bindi and tell them "that's for Barry!"??
I get told by kkkristers I am evil, unfit to be human, deserve no rights, deserve death all becuse some hate mongering god said so. All I can say is fuck them. I will NOT go back into some goddamned closet. The religionistas have books cling for mine and my dughter's death and even murder (rsv). They have done everything they can to destroy my life and dmned near succeeded. They ruined decades of my life and now you claim I must allow them to continue?
I raised a kerfuffle the otherday when I sid it was a kitten and puppy kicking dy. I woiuld never intentionally harm an animal unless it ws attacking me with intentions of harming me. Religious fascists have attacked me with intentions of harm. I saw a 70 pound friend get beaten by his football lineman brother for fooling around with another boy. I have seedn friends die of AIDS as kkkristers cheeredd. Now you want to tell me to shut iup and get to the back of thed bus? Not gonna happen.
It took many years to undo they damage they did to me. I will let the assholes know itt Religionists will not speak out against the hate shown me and mine so theyare just as guiltyas thed ssholes calling fpor my death.
Nobody deserves to be treated like shit for being their authentic self. I hold this truth to be self-evident and (mostly) ignore the assholes. Some I just point and laugh at.
At nearly 80 I have learned nobody gets any respect by being silent and hiding in shadows. I must stand up for myrights or theywill just continue demanding my death. Just as they have for 3000 years. Lev. 20:13 is a death threat. I take death threats seriously.
He was hiding out in the state I used to live in, whose governor got rid of the ethics commission. But now there is another “hiding in Florida” case: Parvis Sabeti. Rich Iranian immigrant whose daughter posted a photo of the family on Twitter and didn’t expect (did her parents lie?) to find out that he was the Shah of Iran’s head secret police torture. A Florida judge just approved Iranian survivors’ civil suit. Luckily the case didn’t show up in Aileen Cannon’s docket. Florida has become the new Argentina….
Want to increase people's desire to do something? Forbid it.
Want to keep people strongly practicing something? Make them have to fight for it, or go underground to do it.
"Wet Paint. Do not touch."
"Don't look in there."
"You must never think about _____________."
The only way that religion will diminish and disappear from civilization is through apathy, disinterest, and neglect. Offer better things for people's needs. It's okay to respectfully challenge absurdities, irrationalities, and unsupportable claims, but DON'T make those things illegal. You're just galvanizing the believers.
Apathy disinterest and neglect of religion brought us theocracy, as the people who know they are becoming irrelevant decided to impose their rejected beliefs with violence and brainwashing children. We need an active, vigilant secular movement. It’s mind blowing how many Americans continue to laugh at or disregard the threat of Christian extremism—a threat that exvangelical activists have been screaming about for years.
Thank you. I agree. I should have made myself more clear. It's not the secular people who should be apathetic; we must actively continue to encourage the ongoing decline of religion in various ways, just not by imposing the same kind of oppressive measures that the Christian extremists would impose on us.
I don't care if they pray to their imaginary friend as long as they don't inflict their misery on others.
Secularism should only apply to the government and how it operates its programs, institutions, and laws. It is about neutrality of the government, it should not be a mandate for the citizens. The way the USA constitution works is that it provides restrictions and rules about how the government works and what it can do, restricting the government from interfering in the rights of the citizens. What it doesn’t do is tell citizens how to live. The laws congress and the states come up with are the rules for citizens and these rules must comply with the constitution. I do not know about Canada’s constitution, but I imagine that it is similar. If there is a protection of religious freedom, then this law is unconstitutional. But to restrict prayer by the citizens in public, does nothing but oppress. It will lead, rightfully, to rebellion by the people.
It is never a good idea to restrict things to this extent.
Yeah, no. There’s no more rule of law here. Even before Trump’s latest election, a movement called the Convention of the States has been trying to take over enough state legislatures to call a constitutional convention so they can “legally” change the Constitution to allow for their “unitary executive theory.” “Democratically elected” (with maximum voter suppression) dictatorships like Russia and Hungary are “so hot right now!”* among fascists. All Amendments except the 2nd will be eliminated. And it’s not just evangelicals who are the problem: Opus Dei cult Catholics have the Supreme Court.
*Zoolander reference to lighten the mood.
𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑎 𝐵𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑜 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡’𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠.
It's the same end goal, different tact. Conservatives in both places want to eliminate religious freedom for non-Christian minorities, ensuring Christianity remains systematically favored. In the U.S., they are doing it by expanding the rights of all religions but in a way that in practice heavily favors Christians. In Quebec, they are doing it by reducing the rights of all religions but in a way that in practice heavily disfavors non-Christians.
𝐿𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 [𝑀𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑠] 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑘𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑚 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡.
...He says, as he demands the right to argue for atheism on the sidewalk...
Look it shouldn't be about *what* you argue for, it should be about *how* you argue for it. Harassing behavior that disrupts public use of public property: no. That's it.
Thank you for writing this. It’s exactly what I was trying to say but unfairly, I don’t have enough coffee yet.
I am the same way about coffee, but I think you sell yourself short. I read your post on Captain Cassiday a few days ago, before you had your coffee. I was quite impressed. I can not imagine how anything could make your comment more clear or erudite. Keep up the good work!
Thank you very much for the lovely compliment. I really appreciate it.
I usually write what I write in the morning, while I am waking up. It’s part of the process of waking up for me now. I used to wait till the middle of the day to write stuff. But this way I can focus early.
Keep in mind that for White Christian Nationalists “Christian” is code for White. “Christian nation” is code for “White ethnostate.” Remember, darker-skinned people were portrayed as “barbarians” and “savages” and “heathens,” in need of the brutality of colonialism, enslavement, and missionization. It’s really not about religion—it’s about the cult of White Supremacy.
Whites are a minority
Whites need to have their own homeland.
A certain percentage of minorities is fine but should be 80-85% white.
If people want a black or oriental majority there are plenty of country they can go to with that.
There's no reason for Europe and USA Canada Australia New Zealand to not be White.
Any non-whites whose family immigrated to the USA and then complains about whites, needs to be kicked out.
We can change the law of the Constitution to allow them to be stripped of citizenship.
There's no reason to tolerate this
You are not even at a 101 level of understanding.
Collectivism and Islam are each Violent Supremacist Totalitarian Genocidal Ideological Cults of Conquest. Each Wants to Control Everyone Everywhere.
[This feels in many ways like a Bizarro World version of what’s happening in the United States.]
Yeah, it's not though.
At the root of both is white people freaking out at the public existence of The Other and worried that one day they won't be on top of the hierarchy of power they've built and maintained for centuries.
Exactly.
They life in perpetual fear of being treated the way they have treated The Others, and yet cannot comprehend changing how they treat others.
What does Charlie Kirk think about this? Oh, wait. Anyway, how about them Bears?
On the issue of gun control, he has suddenly become very silent.
He was very much opposed to gun control. I'm so glad he got his way on the issue.
Yeah, that karma's a bitch.
“I have never killed anyone, but I have read many obituaries with great satisfaction.”
—Clarence Darrow (1857-1938), American defense attorney and author
https://ibb.co/b53H5Mfq
Der OrangeFührer is already blaming the Democrats.
While Mr Kirk did not deserve to be killed, there is now one less voice pushing the fascism.
He deserved it. Kirk had it coming. He asked for it, now he got it. And BTW, what's going on with the reaction to Kirk's murder is actually a major cover up orchestrated by that Stupid Idiot to force Kirk to keep his mouth shut about the Epstein files. Here's what I think happened.
Stupid Idiot Dump deliberately ordered Kirk to be killed and is making it look like an American hero has tragically fallen while Kirk was in fact a vile, hate preaching, close ally of Dump who threatened to expose Dump's involvement with Epstein. Thus, leading Dump to order a hit on him while he fakes a national mourning period to deflect from his heavily involvement with Epstein and to cover his crime against his former ally Kirk.
Nobody deserves to be murdered for voicing ideas, not even toxic ones.
No this wasn't some right-wing conspiracy to detract from Epstein stuff. Maybe it's not a liberal - maybe it's personal, or for publicity, or some other weird reason - we won't know until we find the guy. But I would bet heavily against any sort of organized false flag operation as being just too conspiracy nut job out there.
I fully agree with the free speech defenses now making the rounds by conservative pundits. However I would also fully agree with YOU and probably many of the other posters here if you say that they are being manipulative and insincere about it. They are. They don't mean it, and they have no intention of actually defending speech they disagree with, only speech they do.
Both libs and conservatives are behaving in ways that encourage political violence.
-On the left, folks like you saying 'he deserved it' encourage it. FIRE's surveys on campuses showing that >60% of students think violence is a justified response to offensive speech indicates that a lot of liberals support it, if not encourage it.
-On the right it's much more institutional; SCOTUS saying the President can't be charged with crimes encourages it. The President pardoning the January 6 protestors encourages it. ICE ignoring judicial orders to keep someone in the country encourages it. Policeman beating suspects into a coma or killing them and not getting prosecuted encourages it. All of these institutional "we allow violence it when it's ours" sorts of behaviors send the message to the public that political violence is acceptable and legitimate, if done when you're in charge or to get in charge. For violence like this to end, both libs and conservatives have to start punishing and speaking out against *their own* when it happens. As long as the tribes ignore/excuse their own violence and only get horrified at the other tribes, it will continue. Because that's telling ones' own tribe members that it's okay as long as you do it for the right reasons.
Speech and violence do 𝘯𝘰𝘵 exist on two separate planes. Speech 𝘪𝘴 violence, when the speaker has enough of an audience and a will to use it for evil. Which Mr. Kirk did. He had more blood on his hands than leaked out of his neck. His 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 were weapons, and he intended to keep holding down the trigger until he ran out of ammunition. His continued existence was, absent even the slightest fucking whiff of hyperbole, a mortal threat to millions of people, myself included, because people listened to him, and acted on his words, to effect a campaign of disenfranchisement and persecution the like of which hasn't been seen in generations.
At what point would speech become sufficiently harmful, in your eyes, to justify violence as a response? Goebbels, to my knowledge, never personally murdered anyone- and yet, millions of people died because of 𝘩𝘪𝘴 speech. It seems obvious to me that the judicious application of a bit of violence in that case might've saved an awful lot of people an awful lot of misery. Do the victims have to be in their graves, before a violent reply to harmful speech is warranted? How long the butcher's bill?
Thanks Joan, In my view, the same can be said of Arch Criminal US President Donald Jesus Trump.
What a team they all are !
Galaxians 6:7
Total agreement on this. I have posted on Breitbart today saying I disagree with what Charlie Kirk had to say, but condemned his killer/s
He has suffered the consequences of his opinions, but to say he deserved it is going too far.
Nah ...maybe almost far enough.
Ericc, there is a hell of a lot riding on this outcome. If the FBI, et al, are not able to track down and capture the guilty unbelievably good marksperson, then there will be even more conspiracy theories that pop to the surface.
This will for a long time undoubtably draw much attention away from the Trump/Epstein File release debacle. And just who would be pleased about that ?
I believe that anything can happen in the Untidy States of America, and especially under the command of Arch Criminal US President Donald Jesus Trump and his team. E.g. WTF … The Department of War.
P.S. any leader of any country that can kill eleven people riding in an open boat in international waters because they don’t like those people, well they are very likely to kill anybody, anywhere, anytime.
Iconic FBI Director Just Dropped BOMB about Charlie Kirk
https://youtu.be/7T1NJKzMEUU?si=LhOXYZvt4tJjTm1l
5 min YouTube video
Awesome input, ericc.
We are not yet at the stage where violence is the answer. And as awful as Charlie Kirk was, and as much as he deserved to be dead, one, he did not deserve to be killed. Two, the ones that will are the ones who use violence (and weaponizing the law) against those peacefully protesting
"the ones that will are the ones who use violence (and weaponizing the law) against those peacefully protesting."
Which is what Kirk was inciting in his "sermons."
Not even Stephen Anderson deserves to be killed. Dead, yes. And I will rejoice, and might even make a pilgrimage to piss on his grave and maybe more.
My feelings on hate speech call for arrest not murder, but it needs to be a carefully thought out decision whenever we move the line between permitted and restricted speech (like political ads should be). And, I agree, both men had crossed any reasonable line.
"did not deserve".......
Sure, let's pretend that's true. 😉
We should honor his legacy by not showing empathy. Displays of empathy disrespect his core beliefs, and we can’t have that. /s
Some interesting comments by Kirk drawn together in this article in the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
No/Non, Quebec. Once oppression begins, where does it end?
We've seen what oppression by the religious has meant for humankind. We don't need to create a secular version.
They think that that oppression is necessary because they think one religion in particular is an existential threat to their secularism. Too bad they've targeted the wrong one. 65% Christian, 5% Muslim.
Thank you, Joe. You took the words right off of my tiny little keyboard.
On a per capita basis, it is the biggest risk by a long shot. I agree it's not the biggest share of population today in NA, but it is a muscular aggressive religion that does not have conflicting metaphors to interpret - not like Xtianity. 5% is where we need to set boundaries. Trust our ex-muslim community for advisement.
Again, just listen to the most popular Dawah folk online. They tell you bluntly about the intent to dissolve western society along with secular liberal democracy - that's man's law, not gods law.
It reminds me when France passed a law forbidding face coverings (we all know the target was Muslim women). Guess what happened a few years later ? COVID-19. Way to self-own.
Except, of course, it's not truly secular. It's Christian privilege masquerading as secularism, in much the same way as our own Disaster Pumpkin's racism masquerades as being anti-crime.
I would love to see religion disappear entirely. On its own worthless merits. Sometimes I have been so angry at evangelicals, I have wished they and their ilk could be legislated out of existence, but:
1) Like that will ever happen
and,
2) bensnewlogin's mention of Prohibition above. That didn't work out so well.
This measure sounds like it will create more problems than it solves. While I get purely sick of performative public prayer by politicians, I don't think it should be illegal. Not being able to force anyone to participate in a public prayer against their will should be enough.
Why do people want me to think so early in the morning when I’ve just woken up and I’m on my 1st cup of coffee? On the other hand, why is this question just like this dispute?
The answer is actually pretty easy. The proponent of this bill do not want people to think about it, they want them to react to it. And by react, I mean to put the react back into reactionary. And actually, this comment is pretty funny in a reactionary sort of a way.
Using freedom of religion to strike at the heart of religion, but actually using religion as a cover for political aspirations. Where have I heard of this before? Some huge country south of Canada, somewhere, uses religion in that way. Under the guise of the freedom of religion, religion attacks religion when it is really about something else— power, money, and fear— a path to power and money. But religion is what you use to justify what you cannot justify by any other means.
“ For months now, the caquistes have been looking for an issue that would help them rise from the dead. They may have found it by this new attack on Quebecers’ fundamental rights.” that’s very French humor. We have the CAQ party, members of which are “caquistes”. Which is a pun on the word KAKISTOCRACY— the rule of the stupid people.
And here we are..
I am absolutely no fan of religion, especially the kind of religion that wants to fornicate with the state to advance religious goals like Dominionism, or non-religious goals that have the same stench as dominionism because they are really the same thing: power and money.
If they were truly concerned about people inserting their purely theological concerns into the civil law that governs everyone, the opponents of doing that would simply say as much. The bestest country in the whole wide world needs a strict separation of church and state, which we no longer have. We would not be banning public prayer, because that would be banning religion, which would be just the sort of asshole thing that people who want to take over everything would do. And the people who use religion to justify it want exactly the same thing.
The problem is, no one wants to call it what it is, because that would give the game away. The game is not which flavor of God do you wish to believe in this week. The game is power and money.
The ugly just keeps coming and coming and coming. And religion is exactly the horse it’s riding in on— on both sides.
Wouldn’t it be nice if people actually believed in freedom of religion?
Why yes, yes it would be nice.
Umm... I'm no expert on Canada or Quebec in particular, but I thought their biggest "threat" to secularism was Catholicism.
While I would like to see both Islam and Catholicism die, it should be of starvation not an attempt with a bazooka or even a knife. And it won't work, persecution has never destroyed a movement, indifference does (at least not without a *lot* of murder)
Analysis of the 6 pages short version. I will edit my post when necessary.
"Une consultation publique en ligne s’est déroulée entre le 31 mars et le 8 juin 2025. Plus de
500 réponses ont été collectées et analysées."
An online public consultation was available from March 31st to June 8th. More than 500 answers were collected and analysed.
That doesn't seems a lot.
40 reports had been collected and the questions were also sent to some government agencies.
48 half lead interviews between March 14th and July 3rd, including 1 to 4 people (Whatever it means)
Bla bla bla other interviews with secularism experts, cities/towns halls. More bla bla.
About 10 lines on how Québec dechristianised.
More paragraphs about the history of Québec secularism and this nugget. I will let you make your opinion.
"Despite this legitimate foundation, there are still hurdles. Some concepts, like a multicultural vision, weaken the balance desired by Quebec legislators. So, an expansive application of religious accomodations, brought by this vision, an over valorisation of religion is sometimes too present."
4 different bullet points about secularism : separation of church and state, no religious expression in government (I guess it means prayers before a meeting and not funding of religious schools, among others), gender equality with a direct mention of patriarchy (I feel it's a dig toward Islam more than anything else), freedom of and from religion.
It's mostly about schools here.
The part about visible religious signs is mainly about preschool and kindergarten and they made it "about a need for children to be able to see the face of the adults to socialize correctly"
The report recommend that the religious accomodations for religious holidays be reinforced because "the absence of several employees at the same time is a burden for the others".
The problem is school vacations are mostly based on a christian religious calendar, so of course it can't always works for religious non christians.
4 other bullet points : The need for a religious accomodation should respect the laws defining secularism, any demand to meet a employee of the same gender shouldn't be based on religious preference, no religious accomodation that would impact the public curriculum and it's teaching (I approve of this one), no more collective prayer rooms in junior high, they should be replaced by spaces for one or two people, the potential passing of a law that would allow colleges to refuse any demand for a prayer room.
And somewhere in this 6 pages, the spiel about the sacro-sanct French language. If you wonder what that has to do with secularism, welcome to the club.
Don't you have a friend in Quebec? What is her take on this?
The semi-OT screenshot I posted earlier was from her husband.
And it's BC, not Québec.
The public prayer violates the commandment Jesus gave during his Sermon on the Mount where he tells his followers,
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew 6:5-6 NIV
Top that, guys!
What I do in secret is none of god's business.
God sees you shaving your palms.
I don't bother, but the pervert has more important things he should be focused on, like lowering the fertility rate worldwide, resurrecting that mana stuff, and having a long chat about "proportional response" with his "Chosen People".
This is Iowa, no palms. I have a hackberry, walnut, apple, spruce, and last week I severely shaved a red cedar.
https://youtu.be/iOehoEmI3YY
I live down south on US 63 from Iowa, and I also have no palm trees. But I thought Boreal was referring to palms of hands that get hairy from masturbation.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/483/894/463.jpg
: )
𝐼𝑠 𝑖𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑡 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡?
Free expression, obviously. As noted by the state of secularism report:
[𝑃]𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑛𝑜𝑛-𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠.
So why would the Quebecois government push a prohibition on public prayers?
"𝑆𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑡𝑠, 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑠, 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑄𝑢𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑐," 𝐿𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟, 𝑠𝑎𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑎 "𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝐼𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠."
"𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑦, 𝑤𝑒 𝑔𝑜 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ, 𝑤𝑒 𝑔𝑜 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠."
𝐼𝑡’𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑦𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑀𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ “𝐼𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠.”
Islamophobic Christian Fucking Privilege. That's all. The fools in charge think the only religion is Christianity, and therefore secularism means neutrality between non-religion and Christianity, not neutrality towards all religious viewpoints.
“A blanket ban would stigmatize communities” This is obviously what the Quebec government intends as their constant conflating of Islamists and Muslims. I have no problem with anyone wearing a kippa, turban, cross, hijab etc. Praying in a public square is also not an issue unless you expect me to join in. (no one has ever asked, so I suspect that’s a nonissue too).
I have to wonder how often that’s really a thing that the government has to make a BFD about it.
You've never had that neighbor who complains about your garden border being the wrong shade of white, or the fact that you were grilling in a 4x6 balcony when the city requires it be 5x6?
A bunch of Muslims met in a public park, with a permit, and prayed. Then they met in front of a cathedral and did the same (but note the cathedral staff had no problem with it, so it doesn't sound like it was at all disruptive). I'm sure there were plenty of uptight passers-by who got upset about it, because they get upset about just about anything that doesn't fit in with what they themselves do on a Tuesday.
The government, of course, could just ignore them. But why defend rights when you can collect a few more votes by feeding the outrage?
I never have except the one time someone left an anonymous note about my barking dog which surprised me. No wonder, it wasn’t my dog.
Agreed about feeding the outrage du jour
In a community in Georgia where I once lived, it was not uncommon to see people linking arms to form prayer circles and praying out loud in the local post office, hardware store, grocery store, what-have-you. I found it weird, but other people didn't even seem to notice. Such nice Christians and all, isn't that sweet.
Now if the praying folks had been Muslim, I imagine the reaction would have been quite different.
They treated me like shit--treat them that way. Tit for tat?
Eye for an eye just leaves everybody blind. Despite your justified anger, becoming them isn't the solution. I'm not saying you need to forgive them, but work to the point where you can ignore them. (And that *is* going to take some hard knocks to get them to ignore us, but persecution isn't the answer)
I hve been denied my rights by them. I have been told it is a shame I failed at suicide by them. Go ahead and give them succor. I will give them what they have given me.
Their book of holy babble shows "Give unto others as they have given unto you.
You were denied your rights by Canadian Muslims protesting outside the Notre-Dame Basilica in Montreal in August 2025?
Or you were denied your rights by some other religious group, a long time ago, far away, almost definitely not the same people, but you think collective punishment of religious people is the right response? Should I punch the next person I see wearing a bindi and tell them "that's for Barry!"??
I get told by kkkristers I am evil, unfit to be human, deserve no rights, deserve death all becuse some hate mongering god said so. All I can say is fuck them. I will NOT go back into some goddamned closet. The religionistas have books cling for mine and my dughter's death and even murder (rsv). They have done everything they can to destroy my life and dmned near succeeded. They ruined decades of my life and now you claim I must allow them to continue?
I raised a kerfuffle the otherday when I sid it was a kitten and puppy kicking dy. I woiuld never intentionally harm an animal unless it ws attacking me with intentions of harming me. Religious fascists have attacked me with intentions of harm. I saw a 70 pound friend get beaten by his football lineman brother for fooling around with another boy. I have seedn friends die of AIDS as kkkristers cheeredd. Now you want to tell me to shut iup and get to the back of thed bus? Not gonna happen.
It took many years to undo they damage they did to me. I will let the assholes know itt Religionists will not speak out against the hate shown me and mine so theyare just as guiltyas thed ssholes calling fpor my death.
Nobody deserves to be treated like shit for being their authentic self. I hold this truth to be self-evident and (mostly) ignore the assholes. Some I just point and laugh at.
At nearly 80 I have learned nobody gets any respect by being silent and hiding in shadows. I must stand up for myrights or theywill just continue demanding my death. Just as they have for 3000 years. Lev. 20:13 is a death threat. I take death threats seriously.
I don’t think you need to be silent, just use good judgment. There’s a time to be vocal and a time to just roll your eyes.
OT:
Tiny fingered, Cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon seems to be having a mini stroke.
https://ibb.co/rK2rMdnN
I think mini stroke is what Stormy called it too.
🤣🤣
Just bored cuz he ain't persecuting someone.
He looks like "Weekend at Bernies" in that photo.
He IS "Weekend at Bernies". FIFY :)
Sleepy Don Trump. Wonder if he's farting while he's nodding out?
No need to wonder. Ugh.
More like sharting, I would think.
If she's smart, she has him wearing these:
https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Butt-Reusable-Neutralizers-Activated/dp/B00Q3NOEPK
Hoping it turns into the bigliest stroke ever. A stroke like no one has ever seen.
Many people are saying it will be amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69fPof-ZTnU
Many people are saying.
Lookin' great fat boy.
When the Trump family is cremating Donnieboy, I bet all the lard will cause the biggest grease fire and burn down the crematorium!
One side of his face is definitely drooping. Classic first warning symptom.
OT- Good news from elsewhere in the fight against fascism: https://apnews.com/article/brazil-bolsonaro-supreme-court-trial-coup-attempt-f95765c36dbbdc3355ad3af0b70eacf6
The 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 American fascist who's attempted a coup after losing an election in recent years has just been sentenced to 27 years in prison.
I hope you're fucking happy, Merrick Garland- that could've been 𝘶𝘴, chucking 𝘰𝘶𝘳 wannabe-dictator in the pokey.
But hey, I'm happy for Brazil!
Oh no, Trump's going to bomb Rio, now, isn't he?/s...well, sort of /s.
More sanctions to push them into closer relationships with China and Russia. It is impossible to out stupid der kinderführer.
Apparently he has threatened military action. I can't remember where I read it though. But if it's true Ii's just crazy.
"Apparently he has threatened military action. "
Putin sends drones into Poland's airspace:
Trump
Words: What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones? Here we go!
Action: TACO
Israel bombs Doha:
Trump
Words: I'm not thrilled about it
Action: TACO
Some countries get it.
He was hiding out in the state I used to live in, whose governor got rid of the ethics commission. But now there is another “hiding in Florida” case: Parvis Sabeti. Rich Iranian immigrant whose daughter posted a photo of the family on Twitter and didn’t expect (did her parents lie?) to find out that he was the Shah of Iran’s head secret police torture. A Florida judge just approved Iranian survivors’ civil suit. Luckily the case didn’t show up in Aileen Cannon’s docket. Florida has become the new Argentina….
This is an ancient dumb idea. It doesn't work.
Want to increase people's desire to do something? Forbid it.
Want to keep people strongly practicing something? Make them have to fight for it, or go underground to do it.
"Wet Paint. Do not touch."
"Don't look in there."
"You must never think about _____________."
The only way that religion will diminish and disappear from civilization is through apathy, disinterest, and neglect. Offer better things for people's needs. It's okay to respectfully challenge absurdities, irrationalities, and unsupportable claims, but DON'T make those things illegal. You're just galvanizing the believers.
Apathy disinterest and neglect of religion brought us theocracy, as the people who know they are becoming irrelevant decided to impose their rejected beliefs with violence and brainwashing children. We need an active, vigilant secular movement. It’s mind blowing how many Americans continue to laugh at or disregard the threat of Christian extremism—a threat that exvangelical activists have been screaming about for years.
Thank you. I agree. I should have made myself more clear. It's not the secular people who should be apathetic; we must actively continue to encourage the ongoing decline of religion in various ways, just not by imposing the same kind of oppressive measures that the Christian extremists would impose on us.