So the Quebec provincial government is about to ban civil servants from wearing gear that identifies their religion -- so Jewish civil servants would not be able to wear a kippah on the job, nor Muslims a hijab.
But the premier of Quebec says crucifixes aren't religious symbols, they represent the values of Quebec (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45842471).
The stupid and the hypocrisy, it burns. I'd've expected to hear that out of Texas or Alabama or something, not Canada.
Saying that a crucifix is not a religious symbol is just special pleading, and disingenuous. It's hard for me to believe this is in Canada! I guess there are wanna-be theocrats all over.
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 12, 2018, 04:10:18 PM
Saying that a crucifix is not a religious symbol is just special pleading, and disingenuous. It's hard for me to believe this is in Canada! I guess there are wanna-be theocrats all over.
The Catholic Church may be stronger in Quebec than in France.
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 12, 2018, 04:10:18 PM
Saying that a crucifix is not a religious symbol is just special pleading, and disingenuous. It's hard for me to believe this is in Canada! I guess there are wanna-be theocrats all over.
Canada is more inclusive than the US, but Quebec is a special case and not representative of the country.
Quote from: SGOS on October 12, 2018, 07:29:17 PM
Canada is more inclusive than the US, but Quebec is a special case and not representative of the country.
As I recall, his "reasoning" was that both Catholics and Protestants use it, so it doesn't represent one religion. I don't know how he doesn't grasp that they're both Christian sects... or that the same sort of argument could be used, for example, by Jews to continue wearing the kippah since Reform, Conservative and Orthodox all use it, therefore it doesn't represent one religion.
I think that the authorities want to ban the niqab, the black cloth of face covering, which they ignorantly confusing with the hijab and burka.
However, they haven't got the courage to single out Muslims, so to be inclusive they must ban other religious symbols too.
I agree that the cross is also a religious symbol and excluding it is hypocritical.
Wearing the kippah nowadays at least in Europe with the Muslim population at large is unwise, inviting all sorts of problems.
Quote from: trdsf on October 12, 2018, 10:44:28 PM
As I recall, his "reasoning" was that both Catholics and Protestants use it, so it doesn't represent one religion. I don't know how he doesn't grasp that they're both Christian sects... or that the same sort of argument could be used, for example, by Jews to continue wearing the kippah since Reform, Conservative and Orthodox all use it, therefore it doesn't represent one religion.
I'm not entirely sure I could argue that Catholicism and much of Protestantism are the same religion. While they may share the same central figures, the Catholic mythos and the Protestant mythos are extremely different, to the point with many sects it would be hard to find similarity outside of the Trinity. The ceremonies of a Catholic and the ceremonies of say a Southern Baptist are extremely different even if they all revere the same figure (who they share differing opinions on what his opinions are).
I guess in a literal sense they are all of the same religion, but it does depend on the definition of religion and I think in a more practical sense it is simply to vague of definition to warrant using. To talk about the Jewish sects you mentioned, I would find it extremely impractical to call a Reform Jew and a Orthodox Jew just "Jews", and assuming that they are similar enough for that to tell me enough about them.
As for what that has to do with the thread... not much, honestly. Just a nitpick I have with broad labels.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 13, 2018, 12:32:22 AM
I'm not entirely sure I could argue that Catholicism and much of Protestantism are the same religion. While they may share the same central figures, the Catholic mythos and the Protestant mythos are extremely different, to the point with many sects it would be hard to find similarity outside of the Trinity. The ceremonies of a Catholic and the ceremonies of say a Southern Baptist are extremely different even if they all revere the same figure (who they share differing opinions on what his opinions are).
I guess in a literal sense they are all of the same religion, but it does depend on the definition of religion and I think in a more practical sense it is simply to vague of definition to warrant using. To talk about the Jewish sects you mentioned, I would find it extremely impractical to call a Reform Jew and a Orthodox Jew just "Jews", and assuming that they are similar enough for that to tell me enough about them.
As for what that has to do with the thread... not much, honestly. Just a nitpick I have with broad labels.
Protestants come in a wide variety of forms as well. If you compare Catholics with Lutherans, there aren't very many major differences. Think of a religion as like a species. Some animals within the same species are similar enough to reproduce, while others are too distantly related to do so. There isn't a fine line dividing them, but more of a spectrum. But ask a Christian how many different kinds of Christians there are, and they'll likely say there are two: their denomination and the wrong ones.
Quote from: pr126 on October 12, 2018, 11:40:52 PM
I think that the authorities want to ban the niqab, the black cloth of face covering, which they ignorantly confusing with the hijab and burka.
However, they haven't got the courage to single out Muslims, so to be inclusive they must ban other religious symbols too.
I agree that the cross is also a religious symbol and excluding it is hypocritical.
Wearing the kippah nowadays at least in Europe with the Muslim population at large is unwise, inviting all sorts of problems.
Laicity in France, started this. The French still want to decapitate everyone ... and the Muslims are jealous.
QuoteLaicity in France, started this. The French still want to decapitate everyone ... and the Muslims are jealous.
Outsourcing the decapitation to the Muslims? Perfectly qualified for the job. :-(
Quote from: Shiranu on October 13, 2018, 12:32:22 AM
I'm not entirely sure I could argue that Catholicism and much of Protestantism are the same religion. While they may share the same central figures, the Catholic mythos and the Protestant mythos are extremely different, to the point with many sects it would be hard to find similarity outside of the Trinity. The ceremonies of a Catholic and the ceremonies of say a Southern Baptist are extremely different even if they all revere the same figure (who they share differing opinions on what his opinions are).
I guess in a literal sense they are all of the same religion, but it does depend on the definition of religion and I think in a more practical sense it is simply to vague of definition to warrant using. To talk about the Jewish sects you mentioned, I would find it extremely impractical to call a Reform Jew and a Orthodox Jew just "Jews", and assuming that they are similar enough for that to tell me enough about them.
As for what that has to do with the thread... not much, honestly. Just a nitpick I have with broad labels.
However, Catholics and Protestants wear the same clothes, except for their shaman, and they both may or may not where religious trinkets, so there is no way to visually sort them. The real divide doesn't show up until we compare more distant Christians like the Amish, where they feel it essential to identify themselves as minority targets by wearing strange apparel. However, as a rule, the Amish are not known for cutting off the people's heads in order to get attention. I've dealt with the Amish. They don't even talk about their religion unless I make a direct inquiry. And they don't tell me I'm going to Hell.
There is another more mainline Christian sect that I find even more mysterious than the Amish that I saw around town in Montana. I was too fearful to ask them what their religion was because it felt impertinent, and also, I didn't want an earful of dogma. This sect was distinguished by the women wearing full dresses of pastel blue and tiny white scarves worn upon the head. They looked like Amish on their way to a wild party. My friend used to call them the Hanky Heads. I referred to the "Hanky Heads" once among friends and I got shushed. So I guess that was politically incorrect or something.
"Exclusive Brethren"?
QuoteThis sect was distinguished by the women wearing full dresses of pastel blue and tiny white scarves worn upon the head.
I've seen one of them before, and I have to admit just googling their outfit wasn't providing any information either. Creepy.
Most of the protestants in this area I've talked to claim they are christian while catholics are not. And no, couldn't persuade them otherwise.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2018, 09:20:21 AM
Most of the protestants in this area I've talked to claim they are christian while catholics are not. And no, couldn't persuade them otherwise.
Did anyone here spend enough time in Christianity to understand why Protestants and Catholics don't get along? Really?? Ever hear of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation?
Exclusive Brethren are a subset of the Plymouth Brethren. I have read that the Plymouth Brethren were a great impetus in the 19th century, toward the development of modern Christian Fundamentalism. Though there were a lot of whacked-out Christian sects formed in the 19th century.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2018, 09:20:21 AM
Most of the protestants in this area I've talked to claim they are christian while catholics are not. And no, couldn't persuade them otherwise.
One of my bosses was a Catholic, although he never talked about church stuff. He was replaced with a guy that was a fundamentalist. One of my fundamentalist co-workers said, "I'm so glad they hired a Christian this time." Another guy I worked with who was a Catholic looked at me and asked jokingly, "Am I not a Christian?"
The "No True Scotchman" fallacy took me a while to understand. Finally, I googled it, and read the part about putting honey in tea, and then I understood. If they would have named that fallacy the "No True Christian" fallacy, it wouldn't require the background story to understand what they were talking about.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 13, 2018, 08:24:57 AM
"Exclusive Brethren"?
I don't remember what people called them if I ever actually heard.
Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2018, 10:13:09 AM
Did anyone here spend enough time in Christianity to understand why Protestants and Catholics don't get along? Really?? Ever hear of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation?
Exclusive Brethren are a subset of the Plymouth Brethren. I have read that the Plymouth Brethren were a great impetus in the 19th century, toward the development of modern Christian Fundamentalism. Though there were a lot of whacked-out Christian sects formed in the 19th century.
This is a highly fundamentalist christian area. So, no, they have heard little of actual christian history and most don't care--whatever their minister/priest tells them is what 'is'. Anyway, I have found it highly ironic that the catholics (the originators of the christian bullshit) are considered not christian.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2018, 11:53:05 AM
This is a highly fundamentalist christian area. So, no, they have heard little of actual christian history and most don't care--whatever their minister/priest tells them is what 'is'. Anyway, I have found it highly ironic that the catholics (the originators of the christian bullshit) are considered not christian.
It's social evolution. Some species branch off and things change. 200 years from now, who knows what the current species will become? Currently, science is part of the religious environment. It causes stress and is less accommodating to various species as it represents an environmental change. Some religious individuals are trying to adapt. Others are hanging on trying to survive without change. As in biological evolution, we might speculate on the outcome, but we don't know the outcome.
The worst thing about my eventual death, is that I don't get to watch.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 13, 2018, 08:30:34 AM
I've seen one of them before, and I have to admit just googling their outfit wasn't providing any information either. Creepy.
Yeah, I tried that too, and also got nowhere.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2018, 11:53:05 AM
This is a highly fundamentalist christian area. So, no, they have heard little of actual christian history and most don't care--whatever their minister/priest tells them is what 'is'.
That's why it's important to keep churches out of the political arena, they have way too much sway over their congregations. It was Baptists who wanted separation of church and state from the beginning. Now they scent the opportunity to create a fundamentalist theocracy, and that separation is no longer convenient.
QuoteAnyway, I have found it highly ironic that the catholics (the originators of the christian bullshit) are considered not christian.
Yeah, and todays Protestants wouldn't even have a Bible at all had it not received it from the Roman Church! They'd have never even heard of some guy named Jesus had they not gotten it from the RCC.
Irony indeed! LOL
Quote from: SGOS on October 13, 2018, 07:36:15 AM
However, Catholics and Protestants wear the same clothes, except for their shaman, and they both may or may not where religious trinkets, so there is no way to visually sort them. The real divide doesn't show up until we compare more distant Christians like the Amish, where they feel it essential to identify themselves as minority targets by wearing strange apparel. However, as a rule, the Amish are not known for cutting off the people's heads in order to get attention. I've dealt with the Amish. They don't even talk about their religion unless I make a direct inquiry. And they don't tell me I'm going to Hell.
There is another more mainline Christian sect that I find even more mysterious than the Amish that I saw around town in Montana. I was too fearful to ask them what their religion was because it felt impertinent, and also, I didn't want an earful of dogma. This sect was distinguished by the women wearing full dresses of pastel blue and tiny white scarves worn upon the head. They looked like Amish on their way to a wild party. My friend used to call them the Hanky Heads. I referred to the "Hanky Heads" once among friends and I got shushed. So I guess that was politically incorrect or something.
Even the Amish aren't completely unique. The United Pentecostal Church is pretty similar when it comes to banning modern technology and wearing old fashioned clothes. Their women aren't allowed to cut their hair or wear pants. They have to keep their uncut hair in a weird looking bun, and wear old fashioned dresses. They also don't wear makeup or perfume. The men...well, they can pretty much wear whatever they want, because sexism. They also aren't supposed to have TVs, and aren't supposed to go to the movies. My UPC grandfather used to hide his little TV when having company over from his church.
Quote from: SGOS on October 12, 2018, 07:29:17 PM
Canada is more inclusive than the US, but Quebec is a special case and not representative of the country.
And many places of the US are not representative of the US but speak to part of it. I don't like either group.
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 13, 2018, 02:07:11 PM
That's why it's important to keep churches out of the political arena, they have way too much sway over their congregations. It was Baptists who wanted separation of church and state from the beginning. Now they scent the opportunity to create a fundamentalist theocracy, and that separation is no longer convenient.
Yeah, and todays Protestants wouldn't even have a Bible at all had it not received it from the Roman Church! They'd have never even heard of some guy named Jesus had they not gotten it from the RCC.
Irony indeed! LOL
Actually from translators to modern languages. But the bible still makes little sense.