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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
How lucky there is a native French speaker here. Don't count on me to read through what is probably 288 pages of bullshit. I will just read the 6 pages short version.
It's strange when I hear about a group of people being unreasonable in a secular fashion. But this is, in fact, a very unreasonable position Quebec is taking.
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.
Going after Muslims now. Who will be the next target, monastic Buddhists walking down the street in their saffron robes? Unless you allow public nudity in Quebec, life for those monastic Buddhhists would become rather difficult.
I don't care if they pray to their imaginary friend as long as they don't inflict their misery on others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“I have never killed anyone, but I have read many obituaries with great satisfaction.”
—Clarence Darrow (1857-1938), American defense attorney and author
[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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
: )
https://youtu.be/iOehoEmI3YY
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?
Semi-OT : 🤣
https://ibb.co/WvG3VdhZ
"alas, only in French"
How lucky there is a native French speaker here. Don't count on me to read through what is probably 288 pages of bullshit. I will just read the 6 pages short version.
Merci beaucoup.
Pas d'quoi, ma belle.
It's strange when I hear about a group of people being unreasonable in a secular fashion. But this is, in fact, a very unreasonable position Quebec is taking.
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.
Going after Muslims now. Who will be the next target, monastic Buddhists walking down the street in their saffron robes? Unless you allow public nudity in Quebec, life for those monastic Buddhhists would become rather difficult.
What about nuns?
As long as they don’t make a habit of it.