What A Great Idea!

[Minimalist]

Vive Quebec!

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2013100...PIUO1.html

MONTREAL (AP) - Viewed from the outside, Quebec often seems like a place where all life orbits around the political destiny of a French-speaking province in an English-speaking country. The latest instance centers on religious headwear.

The trigger is a heatedly debated plan by the ruling party, the separatist Parti Quebecois, to make the provincial government religion-neutral. It wants to do so by banning symbols of religious faith such as Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, Muslim head scarves and large crucifixes from public work places.

[Heir Apparent]

Interesting. What happens when Jews, Muslims, Sikhs etc are unable to carry out their tradition though? Will they all move?

[Something completely different]

Be warned, the French always seem to be so beautifuly secular.......

......... until it comes to catholicism.

Other than that, I dont see why wearing religious symbols whilest working or visiting at a public office should be banned.

That in my opinion is an infringement of the right to selfdetermination.

[Brakeman]

Be warned, the French always seem to be so beautifuly secular.......

......... until it comes to catholicism.

Other than that, I dont see why wearing religious symbols whilest working or visiting at a public office should be banned.

That in my opinion is an infringement of the right to selfdetermination.

So should Nazi armbands be banned? KKK Headdresses? The real crimes and violent polarization instigated by these fraudulent superstitions justify banning.

State television is not allowed to publish commercial advertisements with claims that are patently untrue. One can allow unfettered self determination without allowing fraudulent and dishonest behavior. Having disclaimers and BS warnings during public religious proselytizations would quickly dry up the believer crowd.

[Heir Apparent]

Be warned, the French always seem to be so beautifuly secular.......

......... until it comes to catholicism.

Other than that, I dont see why wearing religious symbols whilest working or visiting at a public office should be banned.

That in my opinion is an infringement of the right to selfdetermination.

So should Nazi armbands be banned? KKK Headdresses? The real crimes and violent polarization instigated by these fraudulent superstitions justify banning.

Well I don't know about anywhere else in the world, but in the States both the Neo-Nazi's and the KKK are protected under the 1st Amendment, as are the Westboro "Baptist" Church.

I'm not sure I see the correlation between generally harmless traditional religious garb and extremist groups either.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

So should Nazi armbands be banned? KKK Headdresses? The real crimes and violent polarization instigated by these fraudulent superstitions justify banning.

State television is not allowed to publish commercial advertisements with claims that are patently untrue. One can allow unfettered self determination without allowing fraudulent and dishonest behavior. Having disclaimers and BS warnings during public religious proselytizations would quickly dry up the believer crowd.

Wait, you think Sikhs have carried out violent crimes? Sikhs are some of the most peaceful motherfuckers in the world.

[max-greece]

So should Nazi armbands be banned? KKK Headdresses? The real crimes and violent polarization instigated by these fraudulent superstitions justify banning.

State television is not allowed to publish commercial advertisements with claims that are patently untrue. One can allow unfettered self determination without allowing fraudulent and dishonest behavior. Having disclaimers and BS warnings during public religious proselytizations would quickly dry up the believer crowd.

Wait, you think Sikhs have carried out violent crimes? Sikhs are some of the most peaceful motherfuckers in the world.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. You might be confusing Sikhism with Janism. Sikh's have had their fair share of terrorism in the past and there is constant fear in India that it will be resurrected (sponsored by Pakistan in the main).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182 - An Indian Airlines plane - "A total of 329 people were killed, including 268 Canadians, 27 British citizens and 24 Indians."

[NoraBrimstone]

So should Nazi armbands be banned? KKK Headdresses? The real crimes and violent polarization instigated by these fraudulent superstitions justify banning.

State television is not allowed to publish commercial advertisements with claims that are patently untrue. One can allow unfettered self determination without allowing fraudulent and dishonest behavior. Having disclaimers and BS warnings during public religious proselytizations would quickly dry up the believer crowd.

Wait, you think Sikhs have carried out violent crimes? Sikhs are some of the most peaceful motherfuckers in the world.

Eh... You might want to look into that.

[Something completely different]

So should Nazi armbands be banned? KKK Headdresses? The real crimes and violent polarization instigated by these fraudulent superstitions justify banning.

State television is not allowed to publish commercial advertisements with claims that are patently untrue. One can allow unfettered self determination without allowing fraudulent and dishonest behavior. Having disclaimers and BS warnings during public religious proselytizations would quickly dry up the believer crowd.

Only if people were ducks.

[Brakeman]

Only if people were ducks.

What a canard!

{ [for the non-Europeans] Canard in English = misleading story, Canard in French = Duck}

---

So should Nazi armbands be banned? KKK Headdresses? The real crimes and violent polarization instigated by these fraudulent superstitions justify banning.

Well I don't know about anywhere else in the world, but in the States both the Neo-Nazi's and the KKK are protected under the 1st Amendment, as are the Westboro "Baptist" Church.

I'm not sure I see the correlation between generally harmless traditional religious garb and extremist groups either.

Why should the first amendment protect the right to lie and mislead the public? Simply forcing them to be factual and non-fraudulent would dry up their support. I don't see the issue. Simply put, you should have the right to be stupid all you want, and tell people about your stupidity all you want too, but you are refrained from making known un-factual statements.

Nazi extremist - Got mit uns, very strong (at least internal) Christian support.
KKK - very strong christian support
Al-Qaeda - very strong muslim support

That's a pretty good correlation to me. If any of the groups had been irreligious, they would be unknown to us, without support.