TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website
on 02 Apr 2026 19:47
nextcollapse
What a load of crap
Flyswat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Apr 2026 19:56
collapse
It’s to protect freedom, obviously.
TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website
on 02 Apr 2026 20:01
collapse
No shit, that’s the Quebec government argument.
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 00:04
collapse
Hey you say that in French too, TOUTE SUITE
TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website
on 03 Apr 2026 00:09
collapse
C’est l’argument officiel du gouvernement CAQuiste
En quebecois : Cette gang de vieux caliss de mononc’ tentent de nous faire à croire que c’est pour la liberté académique qu’ils font ça mais tout le monde sait que c’est des tabarnak de vieux mous autoritaires
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 02:14
collapse
Tout court esti
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Apr 2026 20:51
nextcollapse
Minister Roberge has previously stated that street prayers could be considered “acts of provocation.”
Municipalities will be able to authorize them, but only under certain criteria. The new law will also ban the wearing of religious symbols by daycare educators. The government is also extending this ban to teachers and staff at private schools.
Bloody ridiculous. This helps nobody.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Apr 2026 14:30
nextcollapse
So, yes, specifically targeting Muslims, but catching strays with Yarmulkes as well.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 14:43
collapse
I thought the whole point of secularism / separation of church and state was that the state couldn’t ban individual religious expression nor the right to assembly for religious purposes (or any other purpose)?
If the municipalities now have a say in what religious activities are authorized, and which aren’t, then that’s no longer separation of church and state.
crandlecan@mander.xyz
on 02 Apr 2026 20:59
nextcollapse
Good. Delusions have no place in academia.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
on 02 Apr 2026 21:21
nextcollapse
Freedom of religion moment.
yesman@lemmy.world
on 02 Apr 2026 22:53
nextcollapse
They’re not teaching prayer, they’re accommodating it.
You’re suggesting Canadian Universities should show religious people less respect than American prisons.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 23:17
collapse
And government is the perfect entity to decide what groups get that label, they have never called Trans people “delusional” to go after them in Academia after all. /s
Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Apr 2026 21:21
nextcollapse
Based
Vanth@reddthat.com
on 02 Apr 2026 21:27
nextcollapse
At my university (US), one of my calculus professors with a 150+ student lecture hall would repeatedly open his lecture with a slide showing his church and an invitation for students to join him there on Sunday. Absolutely inappropriate to proselytize a captive audience under his power to pass/fail them. There has to be some accountability for universities to stop this, but not to harass a person wearing a cross necklace or a koppel or a hijab. Shame this is legislated at such a high level instead of people just being professional and not a*holes.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 03 Apr 2026 00:21
nextcollapse
And I’m sure like french laicite this will be enforced unequally and will discriminate in order to target minorities.
scutiger@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 00:44
collapse
It doesn’t need to. I don’t think anyone but Muslims is required to pray multiple times a day and need places to do so. It’s specifically meant to be an anti-Muslim law.
Just like making it illegal for anybody to sleep under a bridge. Surely that wasn’t aimed at the homeless, right?
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
on 03 Apr 2026 03:34
collapse
Muslims don't need places to do so (Friday prayer aside), but they have to pray somewhere and they're also forbidding praying in the street.
LongLive@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 13:12
collapse
Defining prayer is difficult, surely?
Would that be a catch all cause for investigations?
I figure this will be compared to thought-crime law.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 14:49
collapse
“The suspect was seen sitting on a park bench with his eyes closed, his head inclined, and his hands clasped in his lap. So you see, your honor, and I submit to the jury, that the suspect was indeed clearly praying in public, and I motion to add a charge of perjury, for lying to this court under oath when he stated ‘I was just resting my eyes.’”
faizalr@fedia.io
on 03 Apr 2026 00:41
nextcollapse
Bad law. There will be consequences for this law.
choui4@lemmy.zip
on 03 Apr 2026 05:48
nextcollapse
Who tf does this help
a4ng3l@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 06:15
nextcollapse
Secularism? As long as it’s applied across the board - including Christians and others - this seems sensible.
BananaLama@lemmy.ml
on 03 Apr 2026 13:49
nextcollapse
It would be sensible. But what’s the benefit?
Evotech@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 14:28
nextcollapse
The population?
It stops public praying as a virtue. When praying is only done in private you can’t judge people being a worse Christian etc for not participating.
So you’ll have a more secular society with more room for people to practice their religion as they see fit. Not doing things just because it’s expected of you.
Like if there’s prayer room at a school. More people will use it because they don’t want to be seen as a bad Muslim. Even if they wouldn’t normally pray at those times.
There is no logic to this person’s stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance.
If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It’s functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval.
Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things…
I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms.
And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons.
Religions do call for a lot of violence don’t get me wrong. I’d even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion.
But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example.
Antisemitism doesn’t happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current “mostly chill” status does not negate the past suffering.
And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church.
Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn’t mean the underlying religion itself calls for that.
As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others.
I’m not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that.
But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities?
Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good.
I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that.
And it’s not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause
Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause
I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion’s particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 14:52
nextcollapse
This isn’t even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That’s the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.
That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
So yeah maybe this would be for the best.
Glytch@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 19:07
nextcollapse
I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
That is your personal belief. You are advocating to force it onto others who do not share it. How is that different from forced conversion?
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 19:33
nextcollapse
Do you not realize how much “belief” is in science?
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
We still today believe in the big bang theory, not because it’s been proven, but because there’s a consensus that says it’s the most plausible explanation.
Science still doesn’t tell us even what to believe regarding the origins of life and consciousness.
We believe in dark matter and dark energy, not because they’ve been directly observed, but because they’re the best possible explanations that we have at this time for certain phenomena that we believe to be their effects.
We believe that there must be some overarching principles that can unite the formulas of quantum physics and general relativity, but no one knows what they are.
Often in medicine, decisions are made based on what the doctors believe, even when there isn’t 100% certainty.
So stop pretending there’s no such thing as belief in science, because there absolutely is.
a4ng3l@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 19:40
nextcollapse
I purposely avoided bringing science in this. You did to match your own narrative. No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
Glytch@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 19:47
nextcollapse
I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
Glytch@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 19:54
nextcollapse
We’re talking about worldviews which is just another name for your beliefs about the world. Whatever you base your worldview on is what you believe. That is a basic fact about how words work.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 19:54
collapse
Let’s go back and forget about all the things you’ve said that are wrong and all the ways you’ve contradicted yourself?
I don’t think so…
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 19:50
collapse
You purposely avoided an angle which plainly shows the error of your assertions? And you’re accusing me of “matching my own narrative” when I show those errors with that angle which you ostensibly avoided?
Also, these are your literal words:
In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
So no, you didn’t avoid bringing science into this.
Also:
No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
Bold words for someone trying to rationalize forcing your worldview on others by claiming it’s scientific and therefore deserves an exception from the “don’t force your worldview on others” rule…
Have you considered competing in the Olympics? Because those are some impressive mental gymnastics…
Heyaaaa now you’re using fallacies :) I’ll gladly go for olympics if there was a fitting discipline yes.
By all means keep defending Rhodes antiquated systems that promote abuse and suffering. I know where we both stand and it suffice to me; you’re never going to change my views on that.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 20:09
collapse
Really? Point out the fallacy that I used? Cause I’ve already pointed out several that you have.
I’m not defending any systems, I’m defending people’s rights to believe in the worldviews of their own choosing, and categorically rejecting any system that would force one set of beliefs on everyone else.
systems that promote abuse and suffering.
You think atheists can’t promote abuse and suffering? What about the Bolsheviks who committed genocide in the name of purging religion? You support that suffering, because the people you don’t like are the ones suffering?
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Apr 2026 20:32
collapse
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
Because there was evidence of its existence, in the form of occasional (but detectable) interactions between particles that produced unexpected results. No one thought the Higgs Boson existed until there was a scientific reason for its existence. If this is what you’re referring to as “belief in science”, then we’re dealing with multiple definitions of the word “belief”, because that’s nowhere close to how it works in religion.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 20:44
collapse
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child, the scent of blossoms on a gentle spring breeze, the taste of fresh fruit in summer. How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Apr 2026 21:45
collapse
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child… How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
So, that’s actually the difference I’m talking about. In science, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you say is “huh, I don’t know the answer to that”. You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Right, he “believed” in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didn’t match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasn’t quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newton’s.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the “belief” in religion is nothing like the “belief” in science.
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if you’re going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 04 Apr 2026 01:15
collapse
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
Either way, it’s still belief. The other user I was arguing with was trying to say people should be forced to give up their religious beliefs. My point was that that’s not okay, because the state cannot dictate one’s beliefs. That user then tried to argue that science and reality are somehow mutually exclusive from belief and therefore deserve an exception, when that clearly isn’t the case. And as soon as you try to go down that path, you’ll have whoever is in charge of what constitutes “reality” banning any hypotheses that don’t align with their particular persuasions. Maybe no one can study string theory, because that person believes in quantum gravity. Or vise versa.
If you can’t see how problematic it is for a state to dictate what people can’t believe, that’s a you problem, not a me problem.
You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. […] In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it.
Some religions are specifically about the mystery of the unknown. It sounds like you’re approaching this with a very narrow view of what a religion is. We tend to call that a bias.
Also, plenty of religious people have a scientific worldview, and their spiritual beliefs accommodate empirical facts. Why should those people be forced to give up their beliefs just because you disagree with them?
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly).
Wow, that went right over your head. How can you claim I’m the one being dishonest when you’re the one attempting to frame a deliberate aporia as ignorance on my part?
Religion is largely constant.
No, it’s not. Or else we’d all still be animists.
Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”
Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. Lots of religions cultivate an appreciation for the unknown. Try considering people besides the obnoxious fundamentalists who are loudest in the media but are mostly viewed as hypocrites by other members of their own religion.
If you’re viewing every religious person as an evangelical christian from the american bible belt, an ultra-orthodox jewish zionist, or a member of the taliban, then I think we’ve identified the problem.
But the thing is, all three of those religions (christianity, judaism, islam) also have other sects that aren’t like that, who believe in science and empathy and universal human rights and mutual respect. But if you’re trying to say that those people need to abandon their religions because you disagree them, then you clearly don’t believe in those things (at least, the empathy, rights, and respect parts).
And it goes beyond the abrahamic religions too. Do you believe people in Tibet should have to give up Buddhism? Because Beijing is anti-religious and that is a part of their cultural imperialism in places like Tibet and Urumqi.
Do you believe Māori and other Pacific Island cultures should give up their religions, because your worldview is more enlightened? How is that not the same as calling them “backward primitives”? Are you starting to see the problems here?
How about indigenous people in the americas, including uncontacted tribes? Are you going to force them to give up their religious beliefs too?
How about all of the religions of the Indian subcontinent? You’re gonna try to tell them what they can and can’t believe?
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter.
Then this entire string has been a red herring. The issue is whether or not to ban individual religious beliefs and expression, and I still firmly say no. The only way to ensure peaceful coexistence and universal respect and dignity is to learn not only to tolerate but also to appreciate the diversity of religious beliefs that exist in the world. Intolerance should never be tolerated, whether the intolerant person is a theist or an atheist
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Apr 2026 13:54
collapse
Either way, it’s still belief.
K, it just seems like you’re dug in at this point. Let me leave you with this. If we had different words for “scientific belief” vs. “religious belief”, I don’t think you’d be trying to make this same point.
If you can’t see how problematic it is for a state to dictate what people can’t believe, that’s a you problem, not a me problem.
No, I get that. Religious freedom is a founding principle of my country, the government has no place telling people what they can and can’t believe. But in our world of reality, that concept has nothing to do with science, is my whole point.
Some religions are specifically about the mystery of the unknown. It sounds like you’re approaching this with a very narrow view of what a religion is. We tend to call that a bias.
Cool, how many people believe in religions like that? How many people believe in religions that follow the scientific method? Yes, I’m most familiar with how Abrahamic religions work because that’s what I grew up around, and that’s the kind of religion that over half the planet participates in. Call that bias if you want, none of that changes the fact that no religion relies on the scientific method, critical and rational thought, and evidence the way science does.
I don’t really feel a need to address anything else you said because, like I said earlier, I agree that freedom of religious expression is important. What I don’t agree with is your attempt to conflate “belief in religion” with “belief in science”.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 04 Apr 2026 14:48
collapse
it just seems like you’re dug in at this point.
Dug into religious tolerance? Yes, I am, and so are most constitutional democracies in the free world. Let’s not try to dig ourselves out of that.
If we had different words for “scientific belief” vs. “religious belief”, I don’t think you’d be trying to make this same point.
No, if you go back to one of the earliest examples of epistemology, before the English language even existed, Plato defines “belief” as opposed to “fact” in Book 6 of the Republic, in the Line Analogy. What we call it, and whether that differs between contexts, doesn’t change the fact that belief exists in science.
The entire reason we’re having this conversation is that the other user was claiming that science is always about facts, never belief, and trying to use that to justify persecuting religious people for their beliefs.
I demonstrated the error in their argument, which you’re now trying to obfuscate by saying “belief is different in science than it is in religion,” when that isn’t what matters, because the other user’s arguments were still erroneous.
No, I get that. Religious freedom is a founding principle of my country, the government has no place telling people what they can and can’t believe.
Okay, then you should probably stop trying to support the arguments of the guy saying that states should ban religious beliefs/expression…
But in our world of reality, that concept has nothing to do with science, is my whole point.
The only reason “science” even got brought up in this conversation was because the other user was trying to hide behind it as some exceptionalist term, as if no beliefs are held in science and everything is factual. I listed a number of beliefs that are commonly held in science, and no honest scientist would claim they are proven facts.
What part of that are you not getting?
Cool, how many people believe in religions like that? How many people believe in religions that follow the scientific method?
Millions, possibly billions. The Catholic church officially endorses science and rationalism, for one. Many Hindu religions believe in science. Many Jewish sects believe in science. Many Muslims believe in science. Many Buddhists believe in science. Many Sikhs believe in science. Many people with indigenous faiths believe in science.
If you’re going to categorically dismiss all those people because they’re religious, then there’s no way to have a good faith discussion with you, because you can’t see through your own biased point of view.
Call that bias if you want, none of that changes the fact that no religion relies on the scientific method, critical and rational thought, and evidence the way science does.
You’re viewing these as mutually-exclusive categories. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that many religious people do believe in science. They don’t need to justify their religion with the scientific method, because religion is not supposed to be a science. The role that it fills in a person’s life and worldview is not the same as the role that science fills. And no one needs to justify their personal beliefs to you in order to be allowed to believe in them.
I don’t really feel a need to address anything else you said because, like I said earlier, I agree that freedom of religious expression is important
Okay then, dismiss the main body of my argument as pertinent to the topic of this discussion, and only address my responses to your attempted red herrings. I don’t care.
If you agree that freedom of religious expression is important, then you’re not the one I’m arguing with. Unless you’re trying to back up the other user that was saying religion should be banned, in which case you’re contradicting yourself.
What I don’t agree with is your attempt to conflate “belief in religion” with “belief in science”.
I wasn’t conflating the two. In fact, you’re conflating them by arguing that we need to hold them up to the same standards. I’ve stated more than once that they fulfill different needs/roles in a human life, that we don’t need to treat religions the way we treat science in order for them to be valid.
If you don’t see how pointing out beliefs within science is a valid argument to someone claiming that religions should be banned and that’s okay because science is all about facts and reality, then I can’t help you. But accusing me of conflating the two is a complete distortion of my argument, a strawman and a red herring,
Religious beliefs are agreed upon systems of opinions about philosophy. Definitions are agreed upon opinions of what words mean.
Both were constructed by humans to better understand and communicate about our world and our place in it.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 19:53
collapse
So… quantum gravity theory, string theory, unified field theory, big bang theory, big crunch theory, and dark matter/dark energy are all beliefs then and in your opinion should therefore be banned?
Those are a tad further than opinions and feelings I suspect. And also are absolutely unrelated to how religions are generating suffering and should be abolished.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 20:13
collapse
I suspect
Well you might want to do more than just “suspect,” because according to the definition of “belief” that you provided, those are still beliefs.
Also, the majority of suffering being “generated by religion” are due to religions trying to force their worldview and set of beliefs on others, which is precisely what you are trying to do.
In other words, the suffering is caused because they want to eliminate people who have a different set of beliefs from their own. Again, which is exactly what you’re attempting to do.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 19:27
collapse
Let’s recap.
Literally, what I said was this:
This isn’t even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That’s the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
And you said this:
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
And now you’re trying to backtrack by claiming this:
I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.
No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn’t just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, “ending religions,” in your words).
The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally “institutions forcing their beliefs on others.” So, no, you’re just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.
Also,
In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn’t plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things “reality and science,” or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?
For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?
Who gets to determine what constitutes “science and reality,” and what constitutes “religion and belief,” particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?
Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined “reality”? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.
How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where “reality” can’t be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?
Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I’m not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you. A wall of text arguing semantics… you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity? Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
I’m also pretty confident that doubts and theories in science are unrelated to mysticism. If only in intents.
stickly@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 20:04
nextcollapse
“Semantics”
My guy, they just laid out your argument and demonstrated the particular flaws in your reasoning. What you’re describing isn’t secularism, it’s wishing the state would enforce your particular world view.
Guess what? Removing religious mysticism from the equation doesn’t make that viable or ethical. They already tried this during the French Revolution and it sucked. Giving the state powers to attack nebulous things like metaphysical beliefs is reverting back to the problems we had for thousands of years under Popes and Kings and Caliphs and Emperors.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Apr 2026 20:05
collapse
So much projection and deflection in two short paragraphs, and yet you dismiss all of my (valid and factual) arguments as “a wall of text rooted in semantics” without even attempting to engage honestly with a single thing that I said? Bold strategy, let’s see if it pays off for you…
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you.
I’m not the one attempting to justify my beliefs, you are. My argument here from the start is that institutions shouldn’t enforce beliefs or worldviews, and that individuals should maintain their rights to religious expression.
You’re the only one here arguing otherwise, claiming that we should enforce one set of beliefs because it’s the one that you hold, that everyone who holds other beliefs should be forced to give them up because you don’t agree with them.
you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity?
Not even a little bit. Holy strawman. They’re attempting a religious theocracy, which by definition involves public institutions enforcing one religion. That’s the opposite of what I’ve been saying from the start.
Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
Another strawan. Who the fuck said anything about a “birthright”?!? When did I claim in any way that I’m superior? At what point did anyone mention my mother?
You’re the only one here trying to grant yourself exceptionalism, pretending you’re superior to others. Never in a million years would I agree that you should be the sole arbiter of what everyone else gets to believe.
SalaciousBCrumb@lemy.lol
on 04 Apr 2026 02:18
collapse
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
That’s what this law does, it specifically targets Muslims who need to pray during the day while pretending to be for everyone.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Apr 2026 17:59
collapse
In some ways it will protect Muslim children as well, not being exposed to crucifixes and requiring Catholic schools to accept Muslim students.
Also, it could give the children a choice to engage in religious practices. Private religious schools should not exist at all, they are a tool for indoctrination and separating children from those with different beliefs is abusive.
That said, the PQ are racists and their goal actually is to discriminate against Muslims.
rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Apr 2026 18:09
collapse
The Quebec right wing, which paradoxically is secular and pro abortion.
The West is way too naive about the growing influence of Islam in its politics and institutions.
The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in most of the Middle East. Europe is just now starting to wake up to the threat of this insidious group.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 23:21
nextcollapse
If you ban all other public speech trying to sell me on anything, I might get behind it. Targeting religion specifically is a bit sus.
Etterra@discuss.online
on 04 Apr 2026 08:17
collapse
More about trying to throttle Christianity, but tbh religion is religion and they’re all bad.
stickly@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 19:11
nextcollapse
Fuck them homeless people right?
liuther9@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 19:19
nextcollapse
There wont be homeless people if only atheists existed
Teppa@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 19:39
nextcollapse
Most homeless have mental health problems, its not really an issue of acquiring a house but them ripping out the pipes to buy drugs.
stickly@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 19:46
nextcollapse
Putting aside how dumb of a statement that is, will the state be mandating homes and forcing people into them? If they have to do that just to accommodate my private beliefs, how is that different than a prayer room in public? Should I be arrested if I’m homeless by choice or want to live out of a tent in the woods?
Just skip the argument to state enforced atheism and don’t pretend this line of thought is rational and secular.
liuther9@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 05:47
collapse
Nobody told you about forcing someone to become atheist. I don’t want to waste time on such stupid people like you. Blocked
A well reasoned and logical reply. Completely air tight argument. We’ve got an enlightened free thinker over here!
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 23:23
collapse
There are enough of us that if we cared to we could solve it. We don’t.
liuther9@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 05:52
nextcollapse
I mean hypothetical world if everyone was smart enough to not believe at least everything. If course my statement is close to impossible
liuther9@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 05:53
collapse
The main problem is amoguses that support our enemies out of ignorance
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 23:22
collapse
I just don’t think that being right makes you more moral or compassionate. Those are separate vectors, there’s no useful kind/religious axis we can map here.
liuther9@lemmy.world
on 05 Apr 2026 04:18
collapse
I do believe there is correlation. I can bet my life there is a correlation
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 2026 05:29
collapse
I get that you’re very sure you’re right. But you’re one person. If I was going to choose to believe things based on how many people were very sure they are right, I’d still be Christian.
I left the church because I saw no evidence it made people better. I see no evidence that any other religion or lack of one does either. It just changes the excuses people use to be cruel to each other.
Etterra@discuss.online
on 04 Apr 2026 08:17
collapse
What’s all that prayer doing for them?
Napster153@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 03:58
nextcollapse
The problem behind this logic is that you will eventually have to contend with identity politics because without a visible structure for worship, people will inevitably begin to organise in secret and decentralise. Decentralised religion is worse and that’s how you create cults like the Nation of Islam and Klu Klux Klan who have nothing to do with the religions they originate from.
Then, there is the problem that every human is influenced by a set of beliefs or experiences that they are exposed to growing up. If they see and observe that the government is the sole power of the realm, then they will be incentivised to pursue and claim that seat of power if given the opportunity arises, and doing so knowingly means they are beholden to no law or people beneath their station.
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
on 04 Apr 2026 05:09
nextcollapse
“The State’s jackboot is oppression…unless it is wearing my preferred socks!”
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 14:30
collapse
If you had your way, you’d strengthen the church and religion. They thrive under oppression and all Abrahamics adore martyrdom.
As an atheist, just let them die on their own. Every year there are less and less of them.
rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Apr 2026 18:15
nextcollapse
Wasn’t the Supreme Court supposed to give its verdict on this? So either the court said nothing or the QC government just passed it anyway.
MrSmith@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 19:23
nextcollapse
Religion is cancer. Every and any.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 23:17
collapse
Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one. When it’s used to harm non-believers especially it’s really easy to see this.
I wouldn’t give Christians or any other religion a pass on this, so I’m not giving Atheists one either.
Wataba@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Apr 2026 03:47
nextcollapse
Good thing your opinion means jack shit, because your basis is fundamentally flawed and incorrect.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 04:00
collapse
Do you think it shows weakness to be polite to those you disagree with? I think it works better to approach people with respect if I want them to consider what I’m saying. It already feels like an attack when someone says you’re wrong, and I don’t want to harden minds against what I think is right.
I’m not always good at it, and I have spoken to people harshly often. It never produced anything but hard feelings on their part. I think it can be satisfying to be mean, and I was looking for an excuse to act in a way that’s less moral without feeling bad about myself. I think even if I was right, I usually didn’t need to be mean about it.
I think that it’s likely nothing I’m doing on this website is important enough to justify me being unkind about it.
EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 04 Apr 2026 04:04
nextcollapse
Wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 23:17
collapse
Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it might be a duck.
EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 Apr 2026 07:12
collapse
That doesn’t make atheism a religion, nor does atheism call for the persecution of anyone. Your logic is flawed and your argument is factually incorrect.
All ducks have legs, but not all birds with legs are ducks.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 2026 05:16
collapse
A muscovy duck isn’t a duck. Technically.
But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.
EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 10 Apr 2026 01:30
collapse
I can only infer from your statement that “Muscovy ducks aren’t technically ducks” which you’ve followed up by stating “anyone who says technically not a duck isn’t saying anything worthwhile”, means you’re telling me what you’re saying isn’t anything of worth.
Well, thanks, we already established that.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 10 Apr 2026 22:16
collapse
Why would I think this was worthwhile? You “Um Actually”-ed my post about the moral behavior of atheists who get religious about atheism.
This was only ever a long shot at best.
EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 12 Apr 2026 19:16
collapse
Ah, but that wasn’t what you originally said:
Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one.
Don’t try to change your argument when it gets proven wrong.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 13 Apr 2026 02:20
collapse
My man, it’s a stance on a theological issue. You don’t want to admit that, and I’m not going to force you. What does going “Yah-huh / Nuh-uh” back and forth forever do for anyone?
EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 19 Apr 2026 00:06
collapse
What does trying to pretend you said something different to what you actually said do except make you look like the liar you are?
embed_me@programming.dev
on 04 Apr 2026 04:28
nextcollapse
Get back to me when there are “discussion rooms” for practising atheists in public spaces 😆
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 23:19
collapse
If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. Whatever your belief of lack of it, I want to see you respected and treated well.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
on 04 Apr 2026 07:40
nextcollapse
Nobody has hurt more people than religion. They long ago lost any benefit of the doubt. We don’t have to be polite, or give them any power, because we’ve seen what they will do with it, every single fucking time.
So, No, fuck those religious whack jobs, we shouldn’t have to live OUR lives, based on THEIR delusions.
Start by taxing, and regulating, churches.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 23:15
collapse
I don’t believe in the magic of Religion to make people moral. I also don’t believe in its opposite. People use religion or tradition to justify what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s not actually the scapegoat’s fault.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 14:11
nextcollapse
No, it’s not.
Not watching football isn’t a “football stance”.
Not eating pork chops isn’t a “pork chop stance”.
Not drinking jagermeister isn’t a “jagermeister stance”.
Not reading Spider-Man comics isn’t a “Spider-Man stance”.
Not being religious isn’t a “religious stance”.
Not doing something isn’t a stance on that something, that’s goofy
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 14:38
nextcollapse
d’awww. Look who thinks they know stuff
So cute
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 23:27
collapse
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 06 Apr 2026 05:36
collapse
Thanks.
If whatever you believe means you feel you have the right to be unkind to people who believe otherwise, it’s problematic. Even if you want to hold onto a different definition of whatever it is you believe, if you use it as an excuse to be unkind it’s still a problem. It’s not the label that’s the problem, it’s the behavior.
If you end up acting just like them, why should anyone believe you’re any different?
Very “it’s not a warcrime if it’s not wartime” energy.
Text comprehension isn’t your strongest side, is it? But then again, religion has been suppressing education for centuries, so it makes sense.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 2026 15:35
collapse
Though obviously I’d prefer a more civil exchange of ideas I can’t deny the ego boost of seeing someone give up. Once it’s down to name calling, it means you gave up on arguing your point.
When people have the faith in their ideas to agree to disagree, they don’t need to resort to name calling. People feel threatened and lash out. It’s understandable.
Tone policing wen you’re out of arguments, classic.
Fuck your religion.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 2026 23:03
collapse
It’s not tone, it’s absence of content. Once you need to make it about me, it means you’ve given up on discussing what I said. What’s true is true no matter who says it, even if you were right about everything you said it wouldn’t change a single thing.
Though if you could be polite too that’d be stellar. Manners and consideration are not weakness.
“Religion is cancer” isn’t an invitation for a discussion.
You said some nonsense about atheism being a religion - I’m not discussing that either, because that’s all it is - nonsense.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 07 Apr 2026 23:43
collapse
You stopped discussing things several posts ago, I noticed. I told you that you did so. Why are you repeating to me what I said to you over my last 2 replies as if it’s news?! I’ve been snarkily complaining about it. It’s not news!
teolan@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 20:52
nextcollapse
Fuck religion but fuck stupid laws like this. Seriously this is just as stupid as the age verification stuff everyone he is mad about.
People have the right to do their rituals if it makes them feel good…
MonkRome@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 13:43
collapse
Not only that, but if you want to end religion, causing people to think their religion is under attack from the outside is the best way to isolate everyone in that religion and make them far more likely to stay in that religion for life.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 21:03
nextcollapse
“If you are a minority, specifically one that has to pray 5 times throughout the day, you don’t get university anymore.”
Jankatarch@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 22:46
nextcollapse
Canada is fr*nch in my eyes.
angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com
on 04 Apr 2026 14:22
collapse
Quebec isn’t in France but given that the only other country I hear about laws like this from is France, it’s still hard not to see it as a French culture thing (specifically a tendency to pass secularism laws that barely affect Christians but have larger implications for people of other religions.)
Bogus007@lemmy.zip
on 03 Apr 2026 22:01
nextcollapse
Interesting to see so many comments defending religion, especially one particular religion. Anyway, IMO religion should be always a private matter. If you don’t like certain rules or laws, nobody is preventing you to leave and be happy somewhere else. So, if a Christian is not happy in a Muslim country due to restrictions, the person can move to a Christian or secular country. If a Muslim is not happy in a basically Christian or secular country, there are many Muslim countries, which will allow him or her to follow the rules of the religion. So, everybody is happy. Hence, what is the deal here?
Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 22:43
nextcollapse
Your opinion is a bit of a paradox, isn’t it? If religion was always a private matter you wouldn’t be able to go to any country and tell what religion that country is.
Part of the problem is that a few religions tell their followers that they own specific land, so they are competing to have exclusivity of that land instead of just going somewhere else.
The expansion of civilisations has always encroached on religions as well. You basically have to choose a point in time to say “starting now religions are allowed to exist in the countries they are already in.” Should the aboriginal Australians just go somewhere else if they don’t like the multicultural/multi-religiousness of modern Australia? What about native Americans if they don’t like capitalist Jesus?
I think the key issue is secularization. Many European countries went through long historical periods where religion dominated politics and public life, followed by centuries of conflict, reform, and eventually stronger separation between religion and state. Modern secular democracies in Europe are partly the result of learning from that history.
Not all religious traditions or societies went through the same process. In some places, religion still plays a central role in law, politics, and daily life, hence it is treated not just as personal belief, but as the basis for governing society.
That does not mean religion itself is uniquely bad or that every religious society behaves the same way. There are also belief systems deeply tied to culture, philosophy, or nature - for example Aborigines or certain Buddhist traditions - that historically were less focused on universal expansion or religious conquest.
The point is not „religion should disappear”, but that societies require separation between religious authority and state power. BTW, Jesus wasn’t a capitalist. If you would be like Jesus, you would be broke today.
Edit: removed redundant text from previous version.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 22:49
nextcollapse
“Abortion is illegal now because it’s unchristian. If you are not a devout Christian, move.”
Please show me where, in the New Testament, Jesus explicitly said that people should or should not have abortions. He never spoke about it directly. In contrast, the hadith literature contains explicit discussions about how unbelievers should be treated and how society should be organized according to religious rules: Sahih Muslim 1767: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah…”. So, you need to fight people, correct?
Calm down. I am sorry if it seeemed like I am targeting Christianity, I did not mean for it to come out like that.
People say “If you want that, then go to US” a lot while discussing trans rights in my home country too and it angers me equally. In fact the whole reason I replied was that your comment reminded me of that logic.
I don’t really want to debate about “Islam vs Christianity.” Fight between two monotheist, Abrahamic religions feels off. Since I am Maturidi too, arguing in favor of random hadith kinda contradicts my beliefs.
I could at most research if the hadith was real or gossip, and whether it was said during wartime as command or during sermon as religious teaching etc.
Legal systems on the other hand are about reasoning and rhetoric so I am more comfortable talking to you about them. Don’t have to worry about what people more than a thousand years ago did lmao.
Both giving random advantages to the majority religion, and giving random disadvantages to minority religions are inconsistent, and unjust to the minority. It’s against the legal rationale.
Not including religion in law also includes tbe “my religion says I can slap my wife argument.” Legal system should NOT take religion into account when rightfully punishing domestic violence.
Hope this clears it up? Again, I am really sorry, I did not mean to accuse Christianity. Fren? :3
Just kidding. I read your comment history talking about bombing Palestine. Zionist shit. Blocked.
Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
on 03 Apr 2026 23:20
collapse
“Just give up your home, job, and family and likely become a refugee if you don’t agree with the prevailing religion. What’s the big deal?”
If this people are coming to be free from their religion and to assimilate to the new country, I think that many people would have the least problem - me included. Unfortunately, there are groups, even not that small, who you hear more often about that they make troubles. Why are Asians so calm?
Also related but isn’t Canada super immigrant dense anyway? If you ignored the architecture, you could genuinely confuse some areas for South Asia lol.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 03:31
collapse
2021 census has us at 23% immigrants, so ya its a lot.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Apr 2026 03:11
nextcollapse
What problem does this solve?
Napster153@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 03:53
nextcollapse
The lack of oppression, there are people who got too comfortable with the illusion of power. Hence, they have to generate misery while they still can.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Apr 2026 05:51
collapse
No, I think is more absurd. They look at the US and overcorrect. There’s a reasonable middle ground where a grey area in processing works itself out after a few generations. That is totally skipped with this volatile approach.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
on 04 Apr 2026 07:35
collapse
It tells religious freaks that we don’t have to live OUR lives based on THEIR delusions.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Apr 2026 16:48
nextcollapse
By denying them theirs?
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
on 04 Apr 2026 20:16
collapse
I’m not denying them their delusions, they can do whatever they want, they just don’t get to make me live by them.
Rooster326@programming.dev
on 04 Apr 2026 16:57
collapse
But you already didn’t have to live your life by them…
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
on 04 Apr 2026 17:47
collapse
Of course we do, whenever the government bows to their ludicrous demands, which is ALWAYS. Despite the fact that the Constitutionally expressly forbids it, our nation’s culture and society have been crafted around Christianity, simply because these screwballs are so relentless, that lazy politicians (redundant) find it easier to give them what they want, than fight the endless culture war with them.
And since they don’t have to pay taxes, or account for their fraudulent fund-raising activities, they have plenty of money to buy politicians to influence the government to favor them.
The Constitution’s official stand on religion is Atheism. We need to enforce that.
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Apr 2026 12:01
collapse
Quebec is in canada, champ.
EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 04 Apr 2026 04:13
nextcollapse
Good, now ban religion altogether, preferably by recognising it as the mental illness that it so clearly is.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 14:08
collapse
You can’t ban it, don’t be silly.
Do you really want THE STATE to have the power to ban belief systems?
EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 Apr 2026 07:07
collapse
Religion isn’t a belief, it’s a delusion.
SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Apr 2026 04:16
nextcollapse
Can’t wait for the endless “end times near! look at this recent event” that are going made concerning this recent ruling. /s
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 14:07
nextcollapse
Instead of feel-good measures like this, they should TAX mosques, churches, temples, prayer sheds, whatever. (it feels good to ME, anyway)
In USA, religions pay virtually nothing, with many more benefits than any secular charity or non-profit.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Apr 2026 17:40
collapse
There’s a whole slew of non -profit orgs that would feel pain before religious ones were taxed at any reasonable level.
This does remove some direct funding, in the public funded orgs won’t have to set aside building space for religion. Students will also have access to different/closer/better schooling if the Catholic schools are not allowed to select students based on their religion, which is great and I don’t know how they were allowed to do that based on our Charter of freedoms
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Apr 2026 17:43
collapse
i imagine a situation where churches could keep non-profit status as long as they provided some tangible service to the community. homeless feedings and things like that. but there’s no universe in which a religious non-profit should get more privileges than a non-religious one
VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
on 04 Apr 2026 14:39
nextcollapse
I don’t believe in any religion, don’t like religion, but I also realize that it’s not the governments place to tell people what they can and can’t believe.
Besides that, given the specifics of this law it’s rather easy to see it’s not even about religion as a whole. It’s just more Islamophobia.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Apr 2026 17:46
collapse
it’s not the governments place to tell people what they can and can’t believe
Right, which is why they are requiring schools that receive public funds to stop discriminating against students
It’s just more Islamophobia.
Also yes and we’ll work on that, but it prompted them into a sensible change.
KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Apr 2026 23:40
nextcollapse
Canadians are bad, but French Canadians are just the absolute worst. Distilled colonialism shouldn’t exist.
threaded - newest
What a load of crap
It’s to protect freedom, obviously.
No shit, that’s the Quebec government argument.
Hey you say that in French too, TOUTE SUITE
C’est l’argument officiel du gouvernement CAQuiste
En quebecois : Cette gang de vieux caliss de mononc’ tentent de nous faire à croire que c’est pour la liberté académique qu’ils font ça mais tout le monde sait que c’est des tabarnak de vieux mous autoritaires
Tout court esti
Bloody ridiculous. This helps nobody.
So, yes, specifically targeting Muslims, but catching strays with Yarmulkes as well.
I thought the whole point of secularism / separation of church and state was that the state couldn’t ban individual religious expression nor the right to assembly for religious purposes (or any other purpose)?
If the municipalities now have a say in what religious activities are authorized, and which aren’t, then that’s no longer separation of church and state.
Good. Delusions have no place in academia.
Freedom of religion moment.
They’re not teaching prayer, they’re accommodating it.
You’re suggesting Canadian Universities should show religious people less respect than American prisons.
And government is the perfect entity to decide what groups get that label, they have never called Trans people “delusional” to go after them in Academia after all. /s
Based
At my university (US), one of my calculus professors with a 150+ student lecture hall would repeatedly open his lecture with a slide showing his church and an invitation for students to join him there on Sunday. Absolutely inappropriate to proselytize a captive audience under his power to pass/fail them. There has to be some accountability for universities to stop this, but not to harass a person wearing a cross necklace or a koppel or a hijab. Shame this is legislated at such a high level instead of people just being professional and not a*holes.
And I’m sure like french laicite this will be enforced unequally and will discriminate in order to target minorities.
It doesn’t need to. I don’t think anyone but Muslims is required to pray multiple times a day and need places to do so. It’s specifically meant to be an anti-Muslim law.
Just like making it illegal for anybody to sleep under a bridge. Surely that wasn’t aimed at the homeless, right?
Muslims don't need places to do so (Friday prayer aside), but they have to pray somewhere and they're also forbidding praying in the street.
Defining prayer is difficult, surely?
Would that be a catch all cause for investigations?
I figure this will be compared to thought-crime law.
“The suspect was seen sitting on a park bench with his eyes closed, his head inclined, and his hands clasped in his lap. So you see, your honor, and I submit to the jury, that the suspect was indeed clearly praying in public, and I motion to add a charge of perjury, for lying to this court under oath when he stated ‘I was just resting my eyes.’”
Bad law. There will be consequences for this law.
Who tf does this help
Secularism? As long as it’s applied across the board - including Christians and others - this seems sensible.
It would be sensible. But what’s the benefit?
The population?
It stops public praying as a virtue. When praying is only done in private you can’t judge people being a worse Christian etc for not participating.
So you’ll have a more secular society with more room for people to practice their religion as they see fit. Not doing things just because it’s expected of you.
Like if there’s prayer room at a school. More people will use it because they don’t want to be seen as a bad Muslim. Even if they wouldn’t normally pray at those times.
It creates pressures and expectations.
Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private.
Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe?
There is no logic to this person’s stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance.
If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It’s functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval.
Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things…
I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms.
And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons.
Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you’re overlooking the good that’s been done.
I don’t think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion.
Religions do call for a lot of violence don’t get me wrong. I’d even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion.
But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example.
Antisemitism doesn’t happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current “mostly chill” status does not negate the past suffering.
And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church.
Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn’t mean the underlying religion itself calls for that.
As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others.
I’m not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that.
But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities?
Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good.
What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables.
I don’t think public funds should support any religion, and I don’t think universities should support unsubstantiated claims.
I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that.
And it’s not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause
I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion’s particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world.
This isn’t even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That’s the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don’t agree with theirs?
That’s no better than forced conversations…
Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others. That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism. So yeah maybe this would be for the best.
That is your personal belief. You are advocating to force it onto others who do not share it. How is that different from forced conversion?
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
Do you not realize how much “belief” is in science?
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
We still today believe in the big bang theory, not because it’s been proven, but because there’s a consensus that says it’s the most plausible explanation.
Science still doesn’t tell us even what to believe regarding the origins of life and consciousness.
We believe in dark matter and dark energy, not because they’ve been directly observed, but because they’re the best possible explanations that we have at this time for certain phenomena that we believe to be their effects.
We believe that there must be some overarching principles that can unite the formulas of quantum physics and general relativity, but no one knows what they are.
Often in medicine, decisions are made based on what the doctors believe, even when there isn’t 100% certainty.
So stop pretending there’s no such thing as belief in science, because there absolutely is.
I purposely avoided bringing science in this. You did to match your own narrative. No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
This is you bringing science into this.
Let’s go back and stick with reality and facts. My bad.
We’re talking about worldviews which is just another name for your beliefs about the world. Whatever you base your worldview on is what you believe. That is a basic fact about how words work.
Let’s go back and forget about all the things you’ve said that are wrong and all the ways you’ve contradicted yourself?
I don’t think so…
You purposely avoided an angle which plainly shows the error of your assertions? And you’re accusing me of “matching my own narrative” when I show those errors with that angle which you ostensibly avoided?
Also, these are your literal words:
So no, you didn’t avoid bringing science into this.
Also:
Bold words for someone trying to rationalize forcing your worldview on others by claiming it’s scientific and therefore deserves an exception from the “don’t force your worldview on others” rule…
Have you considered competing in the Olympics? Because those are some impressive mental gymnastics…
Heyaaaa now you’re using fallacies :) I’ll gladly go for olympics if there was a fitting discipline yes.
By all means keep defending Rhodes antiquated systems that promote abuse and suffering. I know where we both stand and it suffice to me; you’re never going to change my views on that.
Really? Point out the fallacy that I used? Cause I’ve already pointed out several that you have.
I’m not defending any systems, I’m defending people’s rights to believe in the worldviews of their own choosing, and categorically rejecting any system that would force one set of beliefs on everyone else.
You think atheists can’t promote abuse and suffering? What about the Bolsheviks who committed genocide in the name of purging religion? You support that suffering, because the people you don’t like are the ones suffering?
Because there was evidence of its existence, in the form of occasional (but detectable) interactions between particles that produced unexpected results. No one thought the Higgs Boson existed until there was a scientific reason for its existence. If this is what you’re referring to as “belief in science”, then we’re dealing with multiple definitions of the word “belief”, because that’s nowhere close to how it works in religion.
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child, the scent of blossoms on a gentle spring breeze, the taste of fresh fruit in summer. How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
So, that’s actually the difference I’m talking about. In science, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you say is “huh, I don’t know the answer to that”. You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Right, he “believed” in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didn’t match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasn’t quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newton’s.
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the “belief” in religion is nothing like the “belief” in science.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if you’re going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
Either way, it’s still belief. The other user I was arguing with was trying to say people should be forced to give up their religious beliefs. My point was that that’s not okay, because the state cannot dictate one’s beliefs. That user then tried to argue that science and reality are somehow mutually exclusive from belief and therefore deserve an exception, when that clearly isn’t the case. And as soon as you try to go down that path, you’ll have whoever is in charge of what constitutes “reality” banning any hypotheses that don’t align with their particular persuasions. Maybe no one can study string theory, because that person believes in quantum gravity. Or vise versa.
If you can’t see how problematic it is for a state to dictate what people can’t believe, that’s a you problem, not a me problem.
Some religions are specifically about the mystery of the unknown. It sounds like you’re approaching this with a very narrow view of what a religion is. We tend to call that a bias.
Also, plenty of religious people have a scientific worldview, and their spiritual beliefs accommodate empirical facts. Why should those people be forced to give up their beliefs just because you disagree with them?
Wow, that went right over your head. How can you claim I’m the one being dishonest when you’re the one attempting to frame a deliberate aporia as ignorance on my part?
No, it’s not. Or else we’d all still be animists.
Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. Lots of religions cultivate an appreciation for the unknown. Try considering people besides the obnoxious fundamentalists who are loudest in the media but are mostly viewed as hypocrites by other members of their own religion.
If you’re viewing every religious person as an evangelical christian from the american bible belt, an ultra-orthodox jewish zionist, or a member of the taliban, then I think we’ve identified the problem.
But the thing is, all three of those religions (christianity, judaism, islam) also have other sects that aren’t like that, who believe in science and empathy and universal human rights and mutual respect. But if you’re trying to say that those people need to abandon their religions because you disagree them, then you clearly don’t believe in those things (at least, the empathy, rights, and respect parts).
And it goes beyond the abrahamic religions too. Do you believe people in Tibet should have to give up Buddhism? Because Beijing is anti-religious and that is a part of their cultural imperialism in places like Tibet and Urumqi.
Do you believe Māori and other Pacific Island cultures should give up their religions, because your worldview is more enlightened? How is that not the same as calling them “backward primitives”? Are you starting to see the problems here?
How about indigenous people in the americas, including uncontacted tribes? Are you going to force them to give up their religious beliefs too?
How about all of the religions of the Indian subcontinent? You’re gonna try to tell them what they can and can’t believe?
Then this entire string has been a red herring. The issue is whether or not to ban individual religious beliefs and expression, and I still firmly say no. The only way to ensure peaceful coexistence and universal respect and dignity is to learn not only to tolerate but also to appreciate the diversity of religious beliefs that exist in the world. Intolerance should never be tolerated, whether the intolerant person is a theist or an atheist
K, it just seems like you’re dug in at this point. Let me leave you with this. If we had different words for “scientific belief” vs. “religious belief”, I don’t think you’d be trying to make this same point.
No, I get that. Religious freedom is a founding principle of my country, the government has no place telling people what they can and can’t believe. But in our world of reality, that concept has nothing to do with science, is my whole point.
Cool, how many people believe in religions like that? How many people believe in religions that follow the scientific method? Yes, I’m most familiar with how Abrahamic religions work because that’s what I grew up around, and that’s the kind of religion that over half the planet participates in. Call that bias if you want, none of that changes the fact that no religion relies on the scientific method, critical and rational thought, and evidence the way science does.
I don’t really feel a need to address anything else you said because, like I said earlier, I agree that freedom of religious expression is important. What I don’t agree with is your attempt to conflate “belief in religion” with “belief in science”.
Dug into religious tolerance? Yes, I am, and so are most constitutional democracies in the free world. Let’s not try to dig ourselves out of that.
No, if you go back to one of the earliest examples of epistemology, before the English language even existed, Plato defines “belief” as opposed to “fact” in Book 6 of the Republic, in the Line Analogy. What we call it, and whether that differs between contexts, doesn’t change the fact that belief exists in science.
The entire reason we’re having this conversation is that the other user was claiming that science is always about facts, never belief, and trying to use that to justify persecuting religious people for their beliefs.
I demonstrated the error in their argument, which you’re now trying to obfuscate by saying “belief is different in science than it is in religion,” when that isn’t what matters, because the other user’s arguments were still erroneous.
Okay, then you should probably stop trying to support the arguments of the guy saying that states should ban religious beliefs/expression…
The only reason “science” even got brought up in this conversation was because the other user was trying to hide behind it as some exceptionalist term, as if no beliefs are held in science and everything is factual. I listed a number of beliefs that are commonly held in science, and no honest scientist would claim they are proven facts.
What part of that are you not getting?
Millions, possibly billions. The Catholic church officially endorses science and rationalism, for one. Many Hindu religions believe in science. Many Jewish sects believe in science. Many Muslims believe in science. Many Buddhists believe in science. Many Sikhs believe in science. Many people with indigenous faiths believe in science.
If you’re going to categorically dismiss all those people because they’re religious, then there’s no way to have a good faith discussion with you, because you can’t see through your own biased point of view.
You’re viewing these as mutually-exclusive categories. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that many religious people do believe in science. They don’t need to justify their religion with the scientific method, because religion is not supposed to be a science. The role that it fills in a person’s life and worldview is not the same as the role that science fills. And no one needs to justify their personal beliefs to you in order to be allowed to believe in them.
Okay then, dismiss the main body of my argument as pertinent to the topic of this discussion, and only address my responses to your attempted red herrings. I don’t care.
If you agree that freedom of religious expression is important, then you’re not the one I’m arguing with. Unless you’re trying to back up the other user that was saying religion should be banned, in which case you’re contradicting yourself.
I wasn’t conflating the two. In fact, you’re conflating them by arguing that we need to hold them up to the same standards. I’ve stated more than once that they fulfill different needs/roles in a human life, that we don’t need to treat religions the way we treat science in order for them to be valid.
If you don’t see how pointing out beliefs within science is a valid argument to someone claiming that religions should be banned and that’s okay because science is all about facts and reality, then I can’t help you. But accusing me of conflating the two is a complete distortion of my argument, a strawman and a red herring,
Oooohh you just don’t know what words mean. Okay. I’ll let someone with more patience for stupidity handle this. Good day to you.
Fresh from the Oxford Dictionary ;
But please be my guest and educate me.
And you believe this definition to be true?
Nope. I don’t need to believe in them, they just are. Produced by persons undoubtedly smarter than I am.
So you trust this definition because experts have told you it is so?
How are agreed upon definitions remotely similar to religious beliefs ?
Religious beliefs are agreed upon systems of opinions about philosophy. Definitions are agreed upon opinions of what words mean.
Both were constructed by humans to better understand and communicate about our world and our place in it.
So… quantum gravity theory, string theory, unified field theory, big bang theory, big crunch theory, and dark matter/dark energy are all beliefs then and in your opinion should therefore be banned?
Those are a tad further than opinions and feelings I suspect. And also are absolutely unrelated to how religions are generating suffering and should be abolished.
Well you might want to do more than just “suspect,” because according to the definition of “belief” that you provided, those are still beliefs.
Also, the majority of suffering being “generated by religion” are due to religions trying to force their worldview and set of beliefs on others, which is precisely what you are trying to do.
In other words, the suffering is caused because they want to eliminate people who have a different set of beliefs from their own. Again, which is exactly what you’re attempting to do.
Let’s recap.
Literally, what I said was this:
And you said this:
And now you’re trying to backtrack by claiming this:
No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn’t just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, “ending religions,” in your words).
The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally “institutions forcing their beliefs on others.” So, no, you’re just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.
Also,
Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn’t plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things “reality and science,” or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?
For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?
Who gets to determine what constitutes “science and reality,” and what constitutes “religion and belief,” particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?
Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined “reality”? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.
How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where “reality” can’t be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?
Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I’m not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you. A wall of text arguing semantics… you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity? Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
I’m also pretty confident that doubts and theories in science are unrelated to mysticism. If only in intents.
“Semantics”
My guy, they just laid out your argument and demonstrated the particular flaws in your reasoning. What you’re describing isn’t secularism, it’s wishing the state would enforce your particular world view.
Guess what? Removing religious mysticism from the equation doesn’t make that viable or ethical. They already tried this during the French Revolution and it sucked. Giving the state powers to attack nebulous things like metaphysical beliefs is reverting back to the problems we had for thousands of years under Popes and Kings and Caliphs and Emperors.
So much projection and deflection in two short paragraphs, and yet you dismiss all of my (valid and factual) arguments as “a wall of text rooted in semantics” without even attempting to engage honestly with a single thing that I said? Bold strategy, let’s see if it pays off for you…
I’m not the one attempting to justify my beliefs, you are. My argument here from the start is that institutions shouldn’t enforce beliefs or worldviews, and that individuals should maintain their rights to religious expression.
You’re the only one here arguing otherwise, claiming that we should enforce one set of beliefs because it’s the one that you hold, that everyone who holds other beliefs should be forced to give them up because you don’t agree with them.
Not even a little bit. Holy strawman. They’re attempting a religious theocracy, which by definition involves public institutions enforcing one religion. That’s the opposite of what I’ve been saying from the start.
Another strawan. Who the fuck said anything about a “birthright”?!? When did I claim in any way that I’m superior? At what point did anyone mention my mother?
You’re the only one here trying to grant yourself exceptionalism, pretending you’re superior to others. Never in a million years would I agree that you should be the sole arbiter of what everyone else gets to believe.
That’s what this law does, it specifically targets Muslims who need to pray during the day while pretending to be for everyone.
In some ways it will protect Muslim children as well, not being exposed to crucifixes and requiring Catholic schools to accept Muslim students.
Also, it could give the children a choice to engage in religious practices. Private religious schools should not exist at all, they are a tool for indoctrination and separating children from those with different beliefs is abusive.
That said, the PQ are racists and their goal actually is to discriminate against Muslims.
The Quebec right wing, which paradoxically is secular and pro abortion.
Sounds like an idea that will be presented in Reason’s Great Moments in Unintended Consequences in few years.
Lemmy “leftists” out here defending religion at any cost
I don’t hate random people believing in their religion, I hate people using religion as an excuse to force laws that oppress minorities.
As an atheist, albeit an American one, I believe that we should restrict all worship and prayer to the privacy of one’s home, exclusively.
So places of worship are illegal too?
so, anti-freedom then? I can understand not allowing proselytizing, but this reads to me like de facto anti-muslim legislation.
If it disproportionately targets Muslims then you could also argue that they disproportionately use public spaces to practice their religion.
Even an Islamic country like Uzbekistan is cracking down on stuff like this out of fear for radicalism: asiaplus.news/…/uzbekistan-authorities-tighten-me…
The West is way too naive about the growing influence of Islam in its politics and institutions. The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in most of the Middle East. Europe is just now starting to wake up to the threat of this insidious group.
If you ban all other public speech trying to sell me on anything, I might get behind it. Targeting religion specifically is a bit sus.
More about trying to throttle Christianity, but tbh religion is religion and they’re all bad.
Fuck them homeless people right?
There wont be homeless people if only atheists existed
Most homeless have mental health problems, its not really an issue of acquiring a house but them ripping out the pipes to buy drugs.
Putting aside how dumb of a statement that is, will the state be mandating homes and forcing people into them? If they have to do that just to accommodate my private beliefs, how is that different than a prayer room in public? Should I be arrested if I’m homeless by choice or want to live out of a tent in the woods?
Just skip the argument to state enforced atheism and don’t pretend this line of thought is rational and secular.
Nobody told you about forcing someone to become atheist. I don’t want to waste time on such stupid people like you. Blocked
A well reasoned and logical reply. Completely air tight argument. We’ve got an enlightened free thinker over here!
There are enough of us that if we cared to we could solve it. We don’t.
I mean hypothetical world if everyone was smart enough to not believe at least everything. If course my statement is close to impossible
The main problem is amoguses that support our enemies out of ignorance
I just don’t think that being right makes you more moral or compassionate. Those are separate vectors, there’s no useful kind/religious axis we can map here.
I do believe there is correlation. I can bet my life there is a correlation
I get that you’re very sure you’re right. But you’re one person. If I was going to choose to believe things based on how many people were very sure they are right, I’d still be Christian.
I left the church because I saw no evidence it made people better. I see no evidence that any other religion or lack of one does either. It just changes the excuses people use to be cruel to each other.
What’s all that prayer doing for them?
The problem behind this logic is that you will eventually have to contend with identity politics because without a visible structure for worship, people will inevitably begin to organise in secret and decentralise. Decentralised religion is worse and that’s how you create cults like the Nation of Islam and Klu Klux Klan who have nothing to do with the religions they originate from.
Then, there is the problem that every human is influenced by a set of beliefs or experiences that they are exposed to growing up. If they see and observe that the government is the sole power of the realm, then they will be incentivised to pursue and claim that seat of power if given the opportunity arises, and doing so knowingly means they are beholden to no law or people beneath their station.
“The State’s jackboot is oppression…unless it is wearing my preferred socks!”
If you had your way, you’d strengthen the church and religion. They thrive under oppression and all Abrahamics adore martyrdom.
As an atheist, just let them die on their own. Every year there are less and less of them.
Wasn’t the Supreme Court supposed to give its verdict on this? So either the court said nothing or the QC government just passed it anyway.
Religion is cancer. Every and any.
Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one. When it’s used to harm non-believers especially it’s really easy to see this.
I wouldn’t give Christians or any other religion a pass on this, so I’m not giving Atheists one either.
Good thing your opinion means jack shit, because your basis is fundamentally flawed and incorrect.
Do you think it shows weakness to be polite to those you disagree with? I think it works better to approach people with respect if I want them to consider what I’m saying. It already feels like an attack when someone says you’re wrong, and I don’t want to harden minds against what I think is right.
I’m not always good at it, and I have spoken to people harshly often. It never produced anything but hard feelings on their part. I think it can be satisfying to be mean, and I was looking for an excuse to act in a way that’s less moral without feeling bad about myself. I think even if I was right, I usually didn’t need to be mean about it.
I think that it’s likely nothing I’m doing on this website is important enough to justify me being unkind about it.
Wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion.
Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it might be a duck.
That doesn’t make atheism a religion, nor does atheism call for the persecution of anyone. Your logic is flawed and your argument is factually incorrect.
All ducks have legs, but not all birds with legs are ducks.
A muscovy duck isn’t a duck. Technically.
But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.
I can only infer from your statement that “Muscovy ducks aren’t technically ducks” which you’ve followed up by stating “anyone who says technically not a duck isn’t saying anything worthwhile”, means you’re telling me what you’re saying isn’t anything of worth.
Well, thanks, we already established that.
Why would I think this was worthwhile? You “Um Actually”-ed my post about the moral behavior of atheists who get religious about atheism.
This was only ever a long shot at best.
Ah, but that wasn’t what you originally said:
Don’t try to change your argument when it gets proven wrong.
My man, it’s a stance on a theological issue. You don’t want to admit that, and I’m not going to force you. What does going “Yah-huh / Nuh-uh” back and forth forever do for anyone?
What does trying to pretend you said something different to what you actually said do except make you look like the liar you are?
Get back to me when there are “discussion rooms” for practising atheists in public spaces 😆
If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. Whatever your belief of lack of it, I want to see you respected and treated well.
Nobody has hurt more people than religion. They long ago lost any benefit of the doubt. We don’t have to be polite, or give them any power, because we’ve seen what they will do with it, every single fucking time.
So, No, fuck those religious whack jobs, we shouldn’t have to live OUR lives, based on THEIR delusions.
Start by taxing, and regulating, churches.
I don’t believe in the magic of Religion to make people moral. I also don’t believe in its opposite. People use religion or tradition to justify what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s not actually the scapegoat’s fault.
No, it’s not.
Not watching football isn’t a “football stance”.
Not eating pork chops isn’t a “pork chop stance”.
Not drinking jagermeister isn’t a “jagermeister stance”.
Not reading Spider-Man comics isn’t a “Spider-Man stance”.
Not being religious isn’t a “religious stance”.
Not doing something isn’t a stance on that something, that’s goofy
d’awww. Look who thinks they know stuff
So cute
Vegans
Nice word-salad.
Thanks.
If whatever you believe means you feel you have the right to be unkind to people who believe otherwise, it’s problematic. Even if you want to hold onto a different definition of whatever it is you believe, if you use it as an excuse to be unkind it’s still a problem. It’s not the label that’s the problem, it’s the behavior.
If you end up acting just like them, why should anyone believe you’re any different?
Very “it’s not a warcrime if it’s not wartime” energy.
Sounds something that a nazi would say.
It’s the same tolerance paradox. I don’t have to be kind if your “beliefs” create suffering.
I’m honored that you conceded the argument, if not gracefully.
Text comprehension isn’t your strongest side, is it? But then again, religion has been suppressing education for centuries, so it makes sense.
Though obviously I’d prefer a more civil exchange of ideas I can’t deny the ego boost of seeing someone give up. Once it’s down to name calling, it means you gave up on arguing your point.
When people have the faith in their ideas to agree to disagree, they don’t need to resort to name calling. People feel threatened and lash out. It’s understandable.
Tone policing wen you’re out of arguments, classic. Fuck your religion.
It’s not tone, it’s absence of content. Once you need to make it about me, it means you’ve given up on discussing what I said. What’s true is true no matter who says it, even if you were right about everything you said it wouldn’t change a single thing.
Though if you could be polite too that’d be stellar. Manners and consideration are not weakness.
“Religion is cancer” isn’t an invitation for a discussion. You said some nonsense about atheism being a religion - I’m not discussing that either, because that’s all it is - nonsense.
You stopped discussing things several posts ago, I noticed. I told you that you did so. Why are you repeating to me what I said to you over my last 2 replies as if it’s news?! I’ve been snarkily complaining about it. It’s not news!
Fuck religion but fuck stupid laws like this. Seriously this is just as stupid as the age verification stuff everyone he is mad about.
People have the right to do their rituals if it makes them feel good…
Not only that, but if you want to end religion, causing people to think their religion is under attack from the outside is the best way to isolate everyone in that religion and make them far more likely to stay in that religion for life.
“If you are a minority, specifically one that has to pray 5 times throughout the day, you don’t get university anymore.”
- Fr*nce.
Ah yes. Quebec, France
Canada is fr*nch in my eyes.
Quebec isn’t in France but given that the only other country I hear about laws like this from is France, it’s still hard not to see it as a French culture thing (specifically a tendency to pass secularism laws that barely affect Christians but have larger implications for people of other religions.)
Interesting to see so many comments defending religion, especially one particular religion. Anyway, IMO religion should be always a private matter. If you don’t like certain rules or laws, nobody is preventing you to leave and be happy somewhere else. So, if a Christian is not happy in a Muslim country due to restrictions, the person can move to a Christian or secular country. If a Muslim is not happy in a basically Christian or secular country, there are many Muslim countries, which will allow him or her to follow the rules of the religion. So, everybody is happy. Hence, what is the deal here?
Your opinion is a bit of a paradox, isn’t it? If religion was always a private matter you wouldn’t be able to go to any country and tell what religion that country is.
Part of the problem is that a few religions tell their followers that they own specific land, so they are competing to have exclusivity of that land instead of just going somewhere else.
The expansion of civilisations has always encroached on religions as well. You basically have to choose a point in time to say “starting now religions are allowed to exist in the countries they are already in.” Should the aboriginal Australians just go somewhere else if they don’t like the multicultural/multi-religiousness of modern Australia? What about native Americans if they don’t like capitalist Jesus?
I think the key issue is secularization. Many European countries went through long historical periods where religion dominated politics and public life, followed by centuries of conflict, reform, and eventually stronger separation between religion and state. Modern secular democracies in Europe are partly the result of learning from that history.
Not all religious traditions or societies went through the same process. In some places, religion still plays a central role in law, politics, and daily life, hence it is treated not just as personal belief, but as the basis for governing society.
That does not mean religion itself is uniquely bad or that every religious society behaves the same way. There are also belief systems deeply tied to culture, philosophy, or nature - for example Aborigines or certain Buddhist traditions - that historically were less focused on universal expansion or religious conquest.
The point is not „religion should disappear”, but that societies require separation between religious authority and state power. BTW, Jesus wasn’t a capitalist. If you would be like Jesus, you would be broke today.
Edit: removed redundant text from previous version.
“Abortion is illegal now because it’s unchristian. If you are not a devout Christian, move.”
Please show me where, in the New Testament, Jesus explicitly said that people should or should not have abortions. He never spoke about it directly. In contrast, the hadith literature contains explicit discussions about how unbelievers should be treated and how society should be organized according to religious rules: Sahih Muslim 1767: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah…”. So, you need to fight people, correct?
Calm down. I am sorry if it seeemed like I am targeting Christianity, I did not mean for it to come out like that.
People say “If you want that, then go to US” a lot while discussing trans rights in my home country too and it angers me equally. In fact the whole reason I replied was that your comment reminded me of that logic.
I don’t really want to debate about “Islam vs Christianity.” Fight between two monotheist, Abrahamic religions feels off. Since I am Maturidi too, arguing in favor of random hadith kinda contradicts my beliefs.
I could at most research if the hadith was real or gossip, and whether it was said during wartime as command or during sermon as religious teaching etc.
Legal systems on the other hand are about reasoning and rhetoric so I am more comfortable talking to you about them. Don’t have to worry about what people more than a thousand years ago did lmao.
Both giving random advantages to the majority religion, and giving random disadvantages to minority religions are inconsistent, and unjust to the minority. It’s against the legal rationale.
Not including religion in law also includes tbe “my religion says I can slap my wife argument.” Legal system should NOT take religion into account when rightfully punishing domestic violence.
Hope this clears it up? Again, I am really sorry, I did not mean to accuse Christianity. Fren? :3
Just kidding. I read your comment history talking about bombing Palestine. Zionist shit. Blocked.
“Just give up your home, job, and family and likely become a refugee if you don’t agree with the prevailing religion. What’s the big deal?”
If this people are coming to be free from their religion and to assimilate to the new country, I think that many people would have the least problem - me included. Unfortunately, there are groups, even not that small, who you hear more often about that they make troubles. Why are Asians so calm?
Something something France light.
Also related but isn’t Canada super immigrant dense anyway? If you ignored the architecture, you could genuinely confuse some areas for South Asia lol.
2021 census has us at 23% immigrants, so ya its a lot.
What problem does this solve?
The lack of oppression, there are people who got too comfortable with the illusion of power. Hence, they have to generate misery while they still can.
No, I think is more absurd. They look at the US and overcorrect. There’s a reasonable middle ground where a grey area in processing works itself out after a few generations. That is totally skipped with this volatile approach.
It tells religious freaks that we don’t have to live OUR lives based on THEIR delusions.
By denying them theirs?
I’m not denying them their delusions, they can do whatever they want, they just don’t get to make me live by them.
But you already didn’t have to live your life by them…
Of course we do, whenever the government bows to their ludicrous demands, which is ALWAYS. Despite the fact that the Constitutionally expressly forbids it, our nation’s culture and society have been crafted around Christianity, simply because these screwballs are so relentless, that lazy politicians (redundant) find it easier to give them what they want, than fight the endless culture war with them.
And since they don’t have to pay taxes, or account for their fraudulent fund-raising activities, they have plenty of money to buy politicians to influence the government to favor them.
The Constitution’s official stand on religion is Atheism. We need to enforce that.
Quebec is in canada, champ.
Good, now ban religion altogether, preferably by recognising it as the mental illness that it so clearly is.
You can’t ban it, don’t be silly.
Do you really want THE STATE to have the power to ban belief systems?
Religion isn’t a belief, it’s a delusion.
Can’t wait for the endless “end times near! look at this recent event” that are going made concerning this recent ruling. /s
Instead of feel-good measures like this, they should TAX mosques, churches, temples, prayer sheds, whatever. (it feels good to ME, anyway)
In USA, religions pay virtually nothing, with many more benefits than any secular charity or non-profit.
There’s a whole slew of non -profit orgs that would feel pain before religious ones were taxed at any reasonable level.
This does remove some direct funding, in the public funded orgs won’t have to set aside building space for religion. Students will also have access to different/closer/better schooling if the Catholic schools are not allowed to select students based on their religion, which is great and I don’t know how they were allowed to do that based on our Charter of freedoms
i imagine a situation where churches could keep non-profit status as long as they provided some tangible service to the community. homeless feedings and things like that. but there’s no universe in which a religious non-profit should get more privileges than a non-religious one
I don’t believe in any religion, don’t like religion, but I also realize that it’s not the governments place to tell people what they can and can’t believe.
Besides that, given the specifics of this law it’s rather easy to see it’s not even about religion as a whole. It’s just more Islamophobia.
Right, which is why they are requiring schools that receive public funds to stop discriminating against students
Also yes and we’ll work on that, but it prompted them into a sensible change.
Canadians are bad, but French Canadians are just the absolute worst. Distilled colonialism shouldn’t exist.