Bill 62 (anti-face covering) becomes law

196 posts / 0 new
Last post
cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There are all kinds of examples of double standards, assumption that people are above the law, and that their values trump everyone else's. The gun lobby, big oil, capitalism, and all kinds of special treatment that men, straights, and white people get.

There are certainly plenty of privileged groups in society. The point I'm making is that it's only in the case of religion where those privileges are actually enumerated in the law, which specifically and explicitly does not apply to religious people the same way it does to non-religious people. Hell, even Bill 62 includes a religious exemption provision, in a rather laughable attempt to head off court challenges.

6079_Smith_W

I'm talking about self-proclaimed secularists giving a pass to European religious symbols because they are considered "history". And that a lot of this comes down not to religion, or even concern for sexism, but the suspicion that people who dress different might be hiding a bomb, or getting squeamish when non-white people have their faces covered, even though we do it all winter.

But whatever. We can disagree on the question of how much it is grounded in religion. I think your point about putting my values above others' was a good one.

 

cco

Okay. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I agree with you about giving Christianity a pass. A couple of weeks ago, I was returning from an NDP event in Rosemont, and as the bus pulled into Place-des-Arts metro station, I noticed a church next to the station with a big sign outside advertising how much the Liberal government had spent on renovating it, with the slogan "Our religious heritage is sacred!" This, from the government that claims to be establishing "neutrality". I find that pretty revolting.

None of this is to say that Québec should abandon the idea of secularism. I'd be much happier if we started actually practicing it.

lagatta4

True dat. I may not have been clear enough - while I'm against this law I also think it is being used as a wedge issue - a distraction from the austerity agenda of the Couillard government, which disproportionally affects racialised people, women and others suffering systemic discrimination. http://nonauxhausses.org/wp-content/uploads/Affiche-Manif-28.pdf

6079_Smith_W

Freedom of belief and conscience concerns everyone, even if we notice it most as it concerns religious people. And there are ways in which some other distincions of status are recognized in law - some good, some bad, and most of them to do with sex, gender, language and race. Think bathroom laws, the freedom some groups have to be exclusively male or female, or that a person's status as First Nations or as a visible minority sometimes mean that different rules or legal conditions apply.

Not to mention that, as in this case it isn't strictly about religion. There is also a strong cultural dimension that in my opinion is actually more significant.

But that is a tangent that might be best explored elsewhere. Or just left as a point you and I disagree on.

josh

Pogo wrote:

Can people take a second and delete the old comments when they reply, just leave the last one.  Unless your goal is to make the thread unreadable, then please go ahead.

I was rooting for one letter per line.

josh

lagatta4 wrote:

True dat. I may not have been clear enough - while I'm against this law I also think it is being used as a wedge issue - a distraction from the austerity agenda of the Couillard government, which disproportionally affects racialised people, women and others suffering systemic discrimination. http://nonauxhausses.org/wp-content/uploads/Affiche-Manif-28.pdf

Of course.  It's nothing but the three D's.  Diversion, Distraction and Demagoguery.

cco

It's indeed a tangent (though so far in this thread, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of support for the bill), and I don't want to beat a dead horse too much. You did raise one interesting point I'd like to respond to, though.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Think bathroom laws, the freedom some groups have to be exclusively male or female, or that a person's status as First Nations or as a visible minority sometimes mean that different rules or legal conditions apply.

First Nations do indeed have an enumerated special status in many Canadian laws. The distinction I'd draw there is that First Nations status is about bloodline, treaty, and ancestral presence before the arrival of colonists, not personal belief. You can't convert to being First Nations (Joseph Boyden notwithstanding), and publicly-funded Catholic schools aren't there because of a treaty between Canada and the Vatican. To bring it back to Bill 62, the proposed exemptions wouldn't be applied for on the grounds of being Arab or South Asian, but on the grounds of being Muslim.

6079_Smith_W

Actually the crux of the exemption in section 13 isn't religion. It is culture. One presumes this is a wink and a nudge meaning European culture.

“The measures introduced in this Act must not be interpreted as affecting the emblematic and toponymic elements of Québec’s cultural heritage, in particular its religious cultural heritage, that testify to its history.”

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I'm talking about self-proclaimed secularists giving a pass to European religious symbols because they are considered "history". 

I'm a secularist that believes the angels on Motherhouse which is now Dawson College are historical artifacts as well as the Cross on Mont Royal. I think targeting women who wear burkas or niqabs is wrong. There are only a few of them and I don't see the practice spreading. On the otherhand if there were say, 100,000 women wearing them in Montreal I would have a major problem with that. I see it as no different than English sign laws or laws determining who can attend English public schools.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-quebec-is-ground-zero-in-th...

France – where the veil has been banned in schools since 2004 and where the niqab and burka were banned in all public spaces in 2011 – remains the primary reference for Quebec. And the European Court of Human Rights upheld the French niqab/burka ban in 2014 on the grounds that the requirement to show one's face in public fell under "the respect for the minimum requirements of life in society."

It does not prevent anyone from following their religion because it is not a requirement of Islam to cover one's face any more than Christianity requires one to wear a hair shirt. Most religions have practices rooted in the middle ages that are rejected now because they were never required as part of the religion.

Secularism is not a religion it is active rejection of religions which are nothing but propaganda forced on children until they are brainwashed into such fear of God that they place His laws above the laws of society.

Religious adults are people who haven't freed themselves from indoctrination so have less of a grip on reality than the rest of us. At least those who sincerely believe in an invisible supernatural omnipotent being they must obey. In my view that is harmful and sometimes dangerous when taken to extremes.

In that sense I can see Jagmeet Singh's turban as a problem. It is evidence that he has been indoctrinated from a young age to believe in an imaginary supernatural being whose laws and judgement are above that of human laws and judgements.

Trudeau is Catholic, but he doesn't follow Catholic law. I doubt he believes in God. I think he is Catholic like I am Catholic.

6079_Smith_W

You'd probably have to ask Trudeau himself about that. I wouldn't assume someone was an atheist any more than I'd assume they believed in the supernatural.

And secularism isn't an active rejection of religion at all. It is the rejection of having religion - generally one specific religion - controlling government policy. Most of those who pioneered secularism were themselves presecuted religious people.

lagatta4

Yes, while there were Deists who were secularists in France, many minority Protestants as well as Jews were strong supporters of secularism.

The patrimonial question is indeed problematic, in particular for Muslims as I don't believe there were any purpose-built mosques in Québec until after the Second World War, though the Muslim presence goes back much farther. Most of the Arabs who arrived over 100 years ago were Orthodox or Eastern-Rite Catholic Christians. There are churches of those groups that have benefited from the patrimonial subsidies. And of course synagogues, though sadly some of the most historical and beautiful synagogues have been torn down or repurposed (such as the one that is now a part of Collège français). Nowadays that impressive synagogue's façade would have been preserved at the least. Quite a few synagogues - and churches - have become places of worship of other denominations or faith groups. One former synagogue in what is now known as "Mile-Ex" (between Mile-End and Park-X) has become a Vietnamese Cao Dai temple.

In France, the Grande Mosquée de Paris certainly benefits from such patrimonial subsidies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_of_Paris

6079_Smith_W

Those in power too. The Puritans brought in the first major secular reforms in England, including state marriage. Most of the American colonies did not have official state religions, reason being that many of them were fleeing persecution. Kemal Ataturk brought about a secular revolution in Turkey, but remained a fervent Muslim. But a lot of other secular reforms were driven by religious minorities, including some very fundamentalist ones like Jehovahs Witnesses. They suffered persecution from the Canadian and (Duplessis era) Quebec governments and successfully changed laws.

The JWs were also instrumental in lobbying the government for Canada's first Bill of Rights.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
In that sense I can see Jagmeet Singh's turban as a problem. It is evidence that he has been indoctrinated from a young age to believe in an imaginary supernatural being whose laws and judgement are above that of human laws and judgements.

Well, I'm in some agreement with regard to believing in a supernatural being.  But I haven't really seen any evidence thus far that Singh places the utterances of that being "above that of human laws and judgements."

Quote:
Trudeau is Catholic, but he doesn't follow Catholic law. I doubt he believes in God. I think he is Catholic like I am Catholic.

Which "Catholic" laws have you seen him flout??

cco

lagatta4 wrote:

sadly some of the most historical and beautiful synagogues have been torn down or repurposed (such as the one that is now a part of Collège français). Nowadays that impressive synagogue's façade would have been preserved at the least. Quite a few synagogues - and churches - have become places of worship of other denominations or faith groups. One former synagogue in what is now known as "Mile-Ex" (between Mile-End and Park-X) has become a Vietnamese Cao Dai temple.

Now that's an interesting question, because if the purpose of the subsidies is to preserve the building for historical purposes, then I don't see anything wrong with repurposing it. Concordia University turned the downtown Grey Nuns facility into a dorm and student club space. If the idea is that it must serve its original purpose, even if there aren't enough faithful to pay for it themselves, or that it can be swapped out for another religious space, so long as it stays a facility for the supernatural, I'm far less keen on that. How about converting these old churches/synagogues in need of subsidies into public housing, shelters, medical clinics, museums, and the like? Do we need to put tax money into upkeep so people can wander in every 10 years and see where grandma used to pray? That really seems like an area where we should let the market decide. The issue, for me, isn't that there are no Muslim facilities old enough to get subsidies, but that any religious facilities get them at all.

6079_Smith_W

But any person or group can apply for and get a subsidy. As a matter of fact, businesses can. Why should religious organizations be exempt from something that is available to everyone else?

There are mosques old enough to receive subsidies. Canada's oldest, the al Rashid in Edmonton, was built in 1938, and it was moved to Fort Edmonton when the community needed to build a larger mosque in the 1980s.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-oldest-muslim-com...

 

 

cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But any person or group can apply for and get a subsidy. As a matter of fact, businesses can. Why should religious organizations be exempt from something that is available to everyone else?

If they want to be treated like any other business, paying taxes would be a good start. Also, as I mentioned upthread, the sign said "Our religious heritage is sacred!", not "This building's old and nifty!" If the Future Shop outlet runs out of customers, it doesn't get a subsidy to stay open (after all, it's not Bombardier), and since Future Shop has to sell real products that people can use in their lifetimes, their margins are of necessity smaller than religious institutions that don't pay taxes and can charge as much as they want to sell an imaginary product.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The point I'm making is that it's only in the case of religion where those privileges are actually enumerated in the law, which specifically and explicitly does not apply to religious people the same way it does to non-religious people.

Just a real quick shout out and thumbs up.  I've said similar in the past.

It's fascinating that someone's supernatural belief that the Omnipotent One requires them to _____ is a genuine and honestly held belief that we must all respect.  But my genuine and honestly held (but sadly, secular!) belief that I'm a responsible adult and can drink a whole beer (by myself!) in a public park without picking a fight with a seagull or molesting a dachshund means nothing. 

No exemption for MY belief!  Is it because it's not magical??

Why is there no God who commands me to drink a beer in a park as a sacrament????

lagatta4

Smith, I was talking about mosques in Qc! I'd LOVE  to hear of an earler one!

6079_Smith_W

cco, my point is that any individual or group can get a government subsidy, including non-profits which also pay no taxes. Why should churches be excluded, especially since in the real world many of them do a good deal more community work than you imagine? At least many of the congregations I am aware of do, and that includes progressive political work, so I expect there are some doing the same work where you are, for them who want to see it.

As for the properties, in most cases, these churches have far bigger concerns than the property. The First Avenue United here in Saskatoon, was barely saved by heritage status, its future is still unclear, and when the church still owned it they were doing their best to sell it off.

And lagatta, yes, al Rashid has a fascinating history.

 

 

josh

It goes well beyond anything Trump has ever suggested. He’s talked of banning foreign Muslims from entering America. But he has never talked of harassing Muslim women who are already in the U.S.

If he had, he would have been denounced as a racist and mocked mercilessly. Politicians would have lined up to challenge him.

But in Canada, the political reaction outside of Quebec to Bill 62 has been muted.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/10/23/quebecs-anti-niqab-law-brings-trumpism-to-canada-walkom.html

6079_Smith_W

What is he suggesting... that other Canadian provinces should bar Quebec politicians and freeze their assets? I get the concern, and he is right in the Trump comparison, but he might want to think again about his reactionary solutions. And Singh saying that people in Quebec have all the resources they need to deal with this is actually acknowledging they are capable, and sovereign, and  we don't need to resort to paternalistic interference.

And there has been quite a lot of discussion outside Quebec; his editorial is one example.

 

voice of the damned

What is he suggesting... that other Canadian provinces should bar Quebec politicians and freeze their assets?

The closest he comes to a concrete proposal is saying that the federal government should refer it to the SCOC for an opinion. Which I guess is something they could do. I'd still be interested in hearing how common it is for the federal government to do something like that in regards to strictly-provincial legislation.

If it's a regular thing, then Trudeau can legitimately be accused of pandering if he doesn't do it in this case(though there is also the question of whether it would do more harm than good). If it happens rarely or never, I'm not sure there's any case to be made for doing it now.

And, I agree, there is not alot the other provinces can, or should, do about this. Their premiers have fuck-all legal authority over what happens in Quebec, and I doubt too many people in Quebec care what Rachel Notley or Dwight Ball thinks about Bill 62.

voice of the damned

And lagatta, yes, al Rashid has a fascinating history.

I've been there, at the Fort Edmonton location. I suppose, if you really wanna get technical, it does qualify as state-sponsorship of religious activity, since it is still administered as a Muslim house of worship, with footwear-removal requirements and whatnot. I suppose you could say the same about any other religious building that gets historical designation while still in use.

I'm not a huge fan of preserving old buildings via re-location, as with the mosque and everything else at 1885 Street. I'm even less of a fan of artificially re-constructed "historical" sites, which is all the main part of Fort Edmonton is. But those are topics for another thread.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

All 3 federal leaders are dodging this. Politics as usual,I suppose. I think everyone agrees that you can use poublic transit with a face covering. I don't believe transit is a bonafide ' public' service though.

If the law was written to ensure everyone,not  singling out Muslims exclusively,must uncover their face for reasons I've mentioned here a thousand times,I would have a hard time understanding why anyone would oppose this bill.

As for religion freedom,I think ALL religions are bullshit and the furthest thing from being ' progressive' . In fact they are regressive and midieval and I'd like to see them all disappear from our society. That's probably not going to happen. Some religions want a political voice,if they do,then they should be taxed like everone else. But that's a subject for an entirely different thread.

I'm just a little surprised that progressives would want to protect religion. 

 

6079_Smith_W

@ VOTD

Yes, but he does raise the Magnitsky Act as comparison. That's what I was refering to.

And especially in the case of Quebec I think Trudeau would be wise to do nothing, with the exception of ensuring that federal services are available to all, and that federal employees are not discriminated against.

Again, as Singh said, people in Quebec have all the resources to deal with it as they wish. Federal interference will just make a bad situation far worse.

And yes, reconstructed historical sites can often be really awkward. Ditto rebuilding old facades into new structures. Better than the alternative though - winding up in the dump, or used as fill for some construction project.

 

 

josh

I'm just a little surprised that progressives would want to protect religion. 

I never knew that being a progressive and not wanting to punish someone for practicing their religion, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, were mutually exclusive.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

josh wrote:

I'm just a little surprised that progressives would want to protect religion. 

I never knew that being a progressive and not wanting to punish someone for practicing their religion, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, were mutually exclusive.

Religion is in practice oppressive. ALL religions. Why would I defend that?

As for religions wanting a political voice,that was a blatant swipe at Christianity.

Tax the churches - heavily.

All religions cause world war,all religions suck.

lagatta4

A debate on this issue between two women of Muslim backgrounds: http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1077126723686

Ensaf Haidar has also spoken out against niqabs, quoting this article https://twitter.com/miss9afi/status/899648642901987328

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
As for religion freedom,I think ALL religions are bullshit and the furthest thing from being ' progressive' . In fact they are regressive and midieval and I'd like to see them all disappear from our society. That's probably not going to happen. Some religions want a political voice,if they do,then they should be taxed like everone else. But that's a subject for an entirely different thread.

I'm just a little surprised that progressives would want to protect religion.

Progressives aren't protecting religion they are protecting the people who wish to practice their religion. Religions have a special place in the world because so many people are followers and they have lasted for centuries. I think what has happened for many people is that they don't really believe in God but they believe in the Church as a centre of community and shared values that they want to pass down to their children. Secularists haven't been able to create something that would serve the same purpose.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Secularists haven't been able to create something that would serve the same purpose.

To repeat. Secularist does not mean anti-religion. There are plenty of strong secularists who are religious.

There are many non-religious organizations dedicated to physical welfare; not as many which focus on the moral questions of making sense of our lives. So yes, I'd agree those who outright oppose religion are missing part of the purpose they serve for people who are into that sort of thing.

And alan, I think Tommy Douglas or J.S. Woodsworth would have had interesting answers to your point.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

To Smith and Pondering..I read your points and you make perfect sense.

I think what I was really attacking was 'religious right' and ' christian'  conservatives.

I'm a raging atheist and I'm ​more christian than these modern day faux pious fascists.

Again,that's for another thread.

I suppose if you leave me well alone,I couldn't care less about your religion.

I just think that atheism is far more moral than any of the major religions. But then again,some could argue with good points and good examples. I  just can't think of many.

voice of the damned

Rather unconvincing apologetics by Konrad Yakabuski in the Globe...

As one former senior provincial cabinet minister explained it to me, a majority of francophone Quebeckers has felt extremely unsettled by the renewed incursion of religion into the public domain. Quebeckers fought to rid their polity of the insidious influence of the Catholic Church. This has instilled in them a zero-tolerance attitude toward the state's condoning of any religion. The government's failure to act remained an itch Quebeckers could not resist scratching.

Allowing people to ACCESS government services while wearing the hijab is hardly state condoning of religion, any more than it's state condoning of the Natural Law Party if I'm allowed to wear a Natural Law t-shirt while accessing government services.

And anyway, as should be obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of history, the Great Darkness didn't happen because the Quebec government started making accomadations to individual Catholics about religious wear, and next thing you know, you had Catholic political hegemony lording it over the whole province. There was a concerted, very much top-down effort, involving the French and later British colonial authorities, continued later by the Canadian and Quebec governments, to establish and propogate the authority of the RCC.  

And does anyone seriously believe we could end with up Muslim hegemony in Quebec?

And as will always be said whenever this argument is made: If you're worried about the Catholic Church taking over again: Get rid of the damned crucifix!

(And yes, I know that is the QS position, and I have nothing but praise for them.)

The rest of Canada must understand that the debate about religious accommodation in Quebec is informed by developments in Europe, where bans on wearing religious symbols in public institutions are widespread. Hence, the suggestion that this is an open-and-shut case of religious freedom does not carry as much weight in Quebec as elsewhere in Canada. European courts have consistently upheld bans on religious symbols – including the hijab and kippa – in public institutions.

Okay, so the "debate in Quebec" is informed by policies in France. The debate about gun-control in southern Alberta is probably informed by the 2nd Amendment in the USA. Is that supposed to make us more understanding of the pro-gun arguments?

And not to flog a dead horse(except that it's so obviously floggable), but I'm pretty sure the French don't tolerate Catholic symbols in their National Assembly.

http://tinyurl.com/ycalhtmx

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

josh wrote:

I'm just a little surprised that progressives would want to protect religion. 

I never knew that being a progressive and not wanting to punish someone for practicing their religion, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, were mutually exclusive.

And it isn't even as simple as progressives "want(ing) to protect religion".  

Opposition to the niqab ban is not an endorsement of the idea of anybody being MADE to wear the niqab.

It's more about opposition to the idea of PEOPLE who follow one particular form of one religion being singled out for special restriction and what could be called special suspension of trust.  The argument for forcing women in niqab to show their face in public is that this group of people are so inherently suspect, so much more "the OTHER" than anybody else, that they must be forced to submit to what amounts to official state degredation.  

So it's not as simple as "this is what secularism" means.  No one in any other religion in Quebec is being asked to subject themselves to anything comparable to this.  And it matters that most of those people are non-"Western" and non-European, and that most are immigrants to Canada, and that the message they are being given is "you must lose yourself to be accepted in your new country"

cco

Yeah, that Yakabuski piece mystified me, too. Couillard isn't "doing the minimum possible to avoid being attacked on this issue during the election", he's deliberately stoking the flames to paint himself as a nationalist and distract from other reasons his government's unpopular. Yakabuski also, in my opinion, drastically overstates the influence France has over Québec politics and society.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
but I'm pretty sure the French don't tolerate Catholic symbols in their National Assembly.

You can take five, and I'll flog for a moment.  It's fascinating that the reason typically offered for why Quebec takes its secularism so seriously is this notion that they were crushed under the boot of the Catholic Church for so long.  But then why are the only exceptions to this secularism Catholic?  That's like South Africa keeping a few "whites only" drinking fountains for old times' sake.

Quote:
Opposition to the niqab ban is not an endorsement of the idea of anybody being MADE to wear the niqab.

It's sometimes helpful to think of some religious beliefs as being a bit like getting a tattoo on your face.

I don't want a tattoo on my face, I don't want the state forcing me to get a tattoo on my face, if I had kids I wouldn't want them to get a tattoo on their face, and I'd be hard put to argue the merits of anyone getting a tattoo on their face.  But that doesn't mean I think people should be prevented from getting a tattoo on their face if that's what they really want.

In the end, it's less "freedom of religion" and more "freedom of belief" or "freedom of conscience" -- and that freedom applies to and benefits everyone, including atheists and agnostics and secular folk.

And as far as the hijab/niqab issue, one way to frame it is sort of similar to sex work:

-  are some women coerced?  Surely.  It would be naive to think that none are.

- do some women choose it?  Surely.  It would be naive to think that none do.

So how do we balance the rights of those who don't choose this and the rights of those who do?

 

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

You can take five, and I'll flog for a moment.  It's fascinating that the reason typically offered for why Quebec takes its secularism so seriously is this notion that they were crushed under the boot of the Catholic Church for so long.  But then why are the only exceptions to this secularism Catholic?  That's like South Africa keeping a few "whites only" drinking fountains for old times' sake.

Ya this a very funny comment! But kind of way out there considering the graphic image from a white's only sign compared to a cross.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But kind of way out there considering the graphic image from a white's only sign compared to a cross.

I expect that's because you're viewing that cross as you and others might -- as just another religious symbol -- and not as I understand that Quebecers do, as a symbol of oppression. 

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But kind of way out there considering the graphic image from a white's only sign compared to a cross.

I expect that's because you're viewing that cross as you and others might -- as just another religious symbol -- and not as I understand that Quebecers do, as a symbol of oppression. 

A more precise comparison(given that we're talking about symbols, not actual instruments of oppression like whites-only drinking fountains) would be if a school in Alabama banned students from wearing Nation Of Islam t-shirts, on the grounds that NOI promotes racial separation, and it reminds everyone of the bad old days when blacks and whites were segregated in the state.

But the same school keeps an autographed photo of George Wallace Blocking The College Door hanging in a prominent spot in the main office, because "It's part of our history". 

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But kind of way out there considering the graphic image from a white's only sign compared to a cross.

I expect that's because you're viewing that cross as you and others might -- as just another religious symbol -- and not as I understand that Quebecers do, as a symbol of oppression. 

I think you meant to say "some" Quebers. I have die hard catholic cousins in Quebec, they don't see the cross as you described. Not just that, how quick you forget our previous debates brother? What do you see here? 卐  卍?These are "Wan" symbols, representing good luck. That's what I see in the above context.

Descriptive language is a little more "in your face" than just a symbol to more people I believe? Kind of hard to misinterpret a "white's only sign" in bold lettering!

I fully understand the point you're making!!!! And I do not want to take anything away from it either!!!! I just thought there was a humorous element to the comment you made. Do you feel guilty for making such a comment? Because I kind of feel guilty for thinking your comment was funny.

pietro_bcc

The Liberals are trying to have it both ways, on the one hand they say that its a "religious neutrality law". On the otherhand they say that it has nothing to do with religion, it applies to scarves and sunglasses as well. So is it a religious neutrality law or not, if it is what do sunglasses have to do with religion?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What do you see here? 卐  卍?

A Nazi looking in the mirror, asking "what have I done??"

But to be fair, I always fail Rorschact tests.

Quote:
Do you feel guilty for making such a comment?

Having been nominally raised Catholic, I feel guilty about everything.  Not being nicer to strangers, taking the Lord's name in vain, all that money I stole that time...

Quote:
what do sunglasses have to do with religion?

You're not supposed to look directly at God.  Protective eyewear is recommended.

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What do you see here? 卐  卍?

A Nazi looking in the mirror, asking "what have I done??"

But to be fair, I always fail Rorschact tests.

yes we see something different thank you for agreeing with me in your colourful humorous way. And I don’t think ink blots mean very much anymore. People still use those? Isn’t that quackery?

voice of the damned

WWWTT wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What do you see here? 卐  卍?

A Nazi looking in the mirror, asking "what have I done??"

But to be fair, I always fail Rorschact tests.

yes we see something different thank you for agreeing with me in your colourful humorous way. And I don’t think ink blots mean very much anymore. People still use those? Isn’t that quackery?

In fact, there was a controversy about a decade ago where some guy posted the Rorschach inkblots to wikipedia, and some psychoanalysts were complaining that it rendered the tests useless(because patients could study them before their consultation). I don't know how representative those shrinks were of the profession generally, but yes, apparently, the blots are still in professional use.

voice of the damned

The NYT on the Rorschach/wikipedia controversy...

http://tinyurl.com/mjrtxk

The guy who posted the blots was from Moose Jaw.

 

 

Pages