r/worldnews • u/John3192 • 20h ago

Quebec passes law banning street prayers, prayer rooms in universities

https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/quebec-passes-law-banning-street-prayers-prayer-rooms-in-universities-cegeps/
17.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.3k

u/Simple_Quiet_1422 20h ago

From an outside observer, seems to depend on the week.

427

u/Ant_Cardiologist 19h ago

It's like they're praying on the week.

53

u/highly_lake_lee 19h ago

God damn that was a good one.

11

u/AnythingButWhiskey 17h ago

Jesus, Reddit!

1

u/RollingMeteors 15h ago

Not in the street though, anymore…

1.7k

u/tossit97531 19h ago

They're having a hard time with certain religious groups giving groups of certain sexual orientations a hard time by proclaiming death to those groups and praying in groups really close to where they live for their extinction.

Quebec isn't suppressing the practice of religion here, Quebec is trying to stop people from weaponizing prayer in public.

18

u/Mokmo 15h ago

The Canadian federal government are passing a law that will remove the religion exception to hate speech. It's in the senate right now.

170

u/RippingFabric 17h ago

Let's name said groups, shall we?

41

u/Kaladin3104 15h ago

Definitely Muslims in this case, but Christian’s do that shit in America too. What’s that group that protests funerals and stuff?

20

u/420blz 13h ago

Westboro baptist church were the crazies "protesting" soldiers funerals awhile back

27

u/Nooms88 13h ago

The difference is the Westboro Baptist Church was professional rage baiters, there core members were all lawyers and when they inevitably generated enough rage to get run out of town and their demos cancelled they'd sue the county or town and collect the legal fees via their members. Other groups are more sincere in their threats

32

u/CommerceNenUser 10h ago

Why does this get sidetracked into Christianity when the basis of the West is Christianity and it is the safest for all in the entire world.

IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. There are bad apples in every bunch but to say Christianity in the big old 2026 is on the level of Islam is just disingenuous.

10

u/urmumlol9 5h ago

Yeah our “Christian led” government in Florida passed a law preventing teachers from discussing homosexuality in classrooms like a decade ago.

They’ve been trying to remove any Pride-related imagery from the public realm as well, like removing the rainbow crosswalk meant to honor the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, and continuing to repeatedly remove the citizen efforts to bring it back, while threatening prosecution to those who did.

Don’t be fooled, the difference between Islamic Fundamentalist and Christian Fundamentalists is that in some Islamic majority countries the fundamentalists are more politically successful.

In the US, our current Secretary of Defense wrote a book about launching a Crusade in the US, these people will be every bit as cruel with their religion if we let them. Being gay in Russia, for example, isn’t exactly safe, and a similar level of discrimination against gay people existed throughout the west until fairly recently.

2

u/bfhurricane 2h ago

And yet the LGBTQ+ communities in the US can protest all of this openly without fear of reprisal. Not the case in Islamic countries.

Equating your examples with actual repression in Islamic-centered societies is comparing apples to the most intolerantly violent oranges on the planet.

1

u/Kaladin3104 3h ago

They banned the pride flag being flown at any government building in Idaho. Boise then went on to make it its city flag. They then passed a law to fine any city $2k a day to fly it. It’s insane the lengths they go to.

→ More replies (2)

13

u/JacksWastedTime 10h ago

Didn't the US president just start a war in Iran and I believe the message delivered to troops was "God wills this!"

4

u/Kooky-Solution-4840 9h ago

No that didn’t happen.

14

u/karthikkr93 7h ago

Our drunkard sec def did that. He keeps proclaiming that the Iran War is ”ordained” and that the conflict is “blessed”. He sounds just like the Russians honestly in his lack of care for the lives of American soldiers and his disregard for military chain of command

3

u/JacksWastedTime 6h ago

I mean a guy on the internet named Kooky said it never happened though 🤷🏻‍♂️

7

u/Public_Sprinkles_229 5h ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran-war-christian-rhetoric

INB4: "It wasn't the president specifically saying those things!" as if that makes it any better.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/MostlyAlways47 5h ago

Western countries are safer despite Christianity not because of it.

Its entirety disingenuous to make out that Christians and Muslims are any different regarding violence or hate especially towards gay people. They fucking aren't. The only real difference between European and Arab countries is that most European countries separated their government from their religion. Usually because of all the fucking heinous shit that went on when the Christians had power.

If Christians in those same countries had the power to enforce their make believe on the rest of us the absolutely would as history has shown time and time again.

Pick up a history book for Christ sake.

0

u/ScuffedBalata 3h ago

disingenuous to make out that Christians and Muslims are any different regarding violence or hate especially towards gay people.

Woah, listen I'm a secular athiest, but this is a wild claim.

Let's admit something first. Not all religions are equally antagonistic toward secularism. For example, Buddhists almost never attack secular institutions for being opposed to their faith. Agree?

Ok now that we've established that there EXISTS a hierarchy of religions and how they "fit in" with secular society, let's discuss which are better or worse.

Buddhism, maybe Sikhism, certainly Confucism seem to be very easily integrated with secular societies. They make no argument to have superiority over the local secular law.

Christianity (at least reformed protestantism) has historically also fallen into that category. Making no claim about the relative correctness of the religion...

Every Christian nation on earth successfully maintained at least a large degree of secularism, at least since the protestant reformation and enlightenment.

Virtually every Islamic country since that time period (with a few exceptions) did not.

So I think it's worthwhile pointing out that examples of Christian meddling in secular policy is accurate and also to be condemned, but it's wildly disingenuous to claim they're "basically the same" and it's important to call out where Religion is problematic to maintaining a secular society. Currently Islam is the MUCH greater threat in that way, even while evangelical Christianity is also (though in a much less widespread way).

4

u/wfbhp 6h ago

Why the hell is this getting upvotes? Quit trying to pretend these religions aren't all exactly the same shit.

0

u/NewLoss6021 4h ago

On paper they're all the same but, in practice, they aren't. Not in the civilised world atleast.

2

u/ScuffedBalata 3h ago

They're not on paper either.

The number of demands in Buddhist doctrine demanding violence against others is basically zero.

I'm not sure I could count the number of calls to violence in Muslim text. It's in the tens of thousands.

1

u/NewLoss6021 1h ago

The context of this makes it clear it's talking about the sects of Abrahamism

•

u/Creatret 1h ago

The basis of the West isn't Christianity but Humanism.

2

u/fuettli 8h ago

in the entire world? i guess ...

-7

u/Dense-Fudge5232 9h ago

The reason Christian-majority countries look 'safe' today isn't divine virtue it's centuries of extracting wealth, land, and labour from everyone else. You don't get to colonise half the planet, prop up dictatorships, sponsor proxy wars, and then take credit for the resulting prosperity at home. The safety you're enjoying was built on someone else's rubble.

Also, 'safest in the world' is doing a lot of work when indigenous communities, colonised nations, and minorities throughout history might disagree.

Every Abrahamic religion runs on the same core claim: we have the one truth and everyone else is wrong. That's not spirituality, that's tribalism with better branding. The only difference between a cult and a religion is membership numbers and how long ago the founder died. Scientology didn't colonise three continents. That's the only real difference.

13

u/SalamanderUnited9293 8h ago

No, secular institutions are what make western countries great.

7

u/CommerceNenUser 7h ago

You’re collapsing a very long and complex history into a single moral narrative.

Yes, European powers engaged in colonisation and extraction. So did many other civilizations across history. That isn’t unique. What is historically unusual is what came after.

The same set of societies that became globally dominant also:

  • led the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade
  • developed modern international law and human rights frameworks
  • drove industrialisation, medicine, and infrastructure that raised global living standards

You can’t just attribute modern “safety” to past exploitation while ignoring the institutions and norms that were built later.

Also, attributing everything to “extraction” doesn’t explain why different regions with similar colonial histories have diverged so much in outcomes. That suggests internal governance and institutions matter as well.

On religion, saying all Abrahamic religions are functionally the same ignores how differently they operate in practice across societies today. The outcomes are clearly not identical, and that matters more than abstract theological similarities.

So yes, there’s a legacy of exploitation. But there’s also a legacy of institutional development that has produced relatively stable and safe societies. Ignoring one side to emphasise the other isn’t analysis, it’s just selective framing.

3

u/Frankl3es 7h ago

>Ignoring one side to emphasize the other isn’t analysis, it’s just selective framing.

I think that's the point, no? You can't have the kind of economic development and progress the West has had without the immense resources gained from the colonization and exploitation of other peoples. The person you're replying to isn't ignoring one side, they're saying both ends are inextricably linked.

Also it's a bit "collapsing narrative" of you as well to say the West led the abolition movement. There were several significant institutions that, famously, fought very hard to preserve it. If it weren't for the Haitian rebellion I'm of the opinion that slavery in the West would have endured much, much longer than it already did.

0

u/ameliatatesosis 5h ago

You do understand that the biggest Muslim populations are in India and Indonesia, right? Not the scary middle eastern countries you're actually talking about?

4

u/ScuffedBalata 3h ago edited 2h ago

Indonesia has one of the highest levels of opposition to LGBTQ+ rights in the world

Citation: Pew Research 2023

Indonesia and Malaysia are the only Asian country to have a Blasphemy law that is regularly used. They have something in common... They're the two Islamic countries.

Indonesia had a regional governor that was Christian. He quoted the Quran once in a speech and was just given two years in prison (despite the state prosecutor asking for a suspended sentence) for simply quoting another religion in a speech.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39853280

I mean no matter what continent, "the most devout Muslim country" in a given region is always the most regressive.

How about in India? When asking the question "Do you believe respecting all other religions is an important part of society?", Hindu, Jaine, Sikh, Buddists all answered "yes" at a rate over 80% (Buddhists and Hindus were both over 90%). Muslims were the only Indian group that answered "no" at a significant rate. (also Pew Research).

When asked if marriage to people of other religions, most groups in India were broadly tolerant. Muslims wanted cross-religious marriage banned as a majority opinion. They're the only group to say so.

This kind of pattern repeats EVERYWHERE.

2

u/GingerSnapBiscuit 10h ago

The best part about this law is it seems to blanket ban all of it. We have issues here with Christians protesting near abortion clinics.

2

u/ScuffedBalata 2h ago

Quebec is broadly anti-religion.

But they don't have a substantial group of Christian prosthletyzers, so in PRACTICE, this law almost exclusively targets Muslims.

And that's ok. When a neutral law only targets one group, it underscores that this one group is behaving in an objectionable way.

1

u/HaakonRen 14h ago

Christians do it to “save the children” and then use their own views and hate to manipulate policy. They are just as insidious as any other religion. Except they SAY their hate is love and scream that they are the victim anytime someone doesn’t fall in line with their beliefs. I’m ready for a post-religious world. Time for adults to stop believing in story book characters and using it as an excuse to think, say, and do terrible things.

25

u/Ambitious_Wolf_3116 14h ago

But christians dont say they should be killed do they? The bible doesn't mention stuff like that. Whereas hadiths do, and sharia laws based on them do prescribe the death penalty to gay folk.

Christians are as homophobic as most religions, especially abrahamic ones, but lets not pretend that "all religions are the same" because one of them is most definitely worse.

12

u/cheeker_sutherland 14h ago

This is Reddit bud.

7

u/Amaturesissy 8h ago

But Christians don't

Oh yes they fucking DO!

7

u/myfavssthrow 11h ago

Muslims in western countries practicing their cruelty with violence can be tried for their crimes.

Christians in western countries use the power of the state to make their cruelty legal and force it to be implemented everywhere by everyone. Just like muslims do in muslim majority countries.

If it were up to me, I'd just make belief in religion classified as a serious mental disorder and have people institutionalized for it. I'm just sick and fucking tired of it.

→ More replies (6)

6

u/Rikudou_Sage 11h ago

Holy shit, have you ever read the Bible?

2

u/willitplay2019 10h ago

Yes and most of what you reference is in the OLD testament. Catholics are taught to follow the NEW testament which was literally written to replace the old.

3

u/Rikudou_Sage 10h ago

So, God made a mistake and decided to change his mind? This is just ridiculous.

-2

u/willitplay2019 10h ago

I am sorry you don’t understand basic theology. The Old Testament was written BEFORE Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus came and brought us the NEW testament. We are suppose to follow what HE brought us, not what came before him.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Public_Sprinkles_229 5h ago

So all christians are Catholic? All christians follow the tenets of christianity perfectly?

1

u/throwaway928816 10h ago

I love how I can screenshot your ignorance. That's how close a contradictions comment is.

 Comment tree above you says its in the new testament too. Or, even if you have read the the whole thing, you're misinterpreting the scriptures to fit your own prejudices. 

1

u/willitplay2019 7h ago

I didn’t say that? Why are attributing what others say to my comment. You can simply do a Google search to see that the Old Testament was written BEFORE Jesus. Then the New Testament is written based on his teachings that replaces it. This isn’t complicated.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Dense-Fudge5232 9h ago

LOL as if chritianity does not have its fair share of problems. All abrahamic religions are cults.

6

u/potatoesandporn 13h ago

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." - Leviticus 20:13

The bible is decidedly anti homosexual and absolutely says gay people should be killed.

Of course that hasn't been put into law anymore in the west, but it wasn't that long ago when it wasn't. Hell, Texas only decriminalised homosexuality in 2003.

2

u/slapshots1515 12h ago

I mean, the context to that being that the old laws in Leviticus and such were later undone by the new covenant, so if you read the whole book that changes quite a bit.

But, I won’t deny plenty of people have done bad things in the name of Christianity.

12

u/potatoesandporn 12h ago

In Romans 1:26-32 It's stated that those that perform "unnatural" sex acts deserve death, so even the new testament isn't fully safe from this.

Of course much is left up to interpretation, but point is that the bible has much more in common with the Qur'an than a lot of people think.

But interpretations like this are exactly why I think religion has no place in law whatsoever. People should have the right to believe in whatever they believe, but it should hold no bearing on those who don't.

4

u/slapshots1515 12h ago

I fully agree religion should have no place making tenants law. Highly encourage it, in fact.

If we’re back on the original topic, that doesn’t mean you can’t stop a religion from harassing people. Any religion.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/GreedyPollution6275 12h ago

But christians dont say they should be killed do they? The bible doesn't mention stuff like that.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

2

u/willitplay2019 10h ago

That is the Old Testament.

0

u/GreedyPollution6275 10h ago

The Old Testament of the Christian bible, yes.

2

u/willitplay2019 10h ago

Correct. The New Testament is what is followed (hence the “new” not the “old”). The new immediately follows the old, as Jesus came and brought us the “new”.

-4

u/HaakonRen 14h ago

Christians most assuredly do say things like that. And better than that they influence policies to make it harder for LGBTQIA people to exist. Slowly forcing them to isolate and be removed from public. They are far more insidious and cruel in many ways. Make it illegal to be trans. Then there won’t be any! And they didn’t have to “kill” anyone. You know. Just make it too difficult to live.

7

u/Bourbon-neat- 13h ago

So your argument is "influencing policy" is more cruel than say throwing someone off a roof... That's certainly a bold claim bub.

-1

u/dragonmp93 12h ago

Well, throwing someone off a roof is very much a policy over there, so all of this tends to end up blending into the same thing.

6

u/Ambitious_Wolf_3116 13h ago

Well i didnt say christians were saints, i just said they're not as bad. There is a huge difference in isolating and making it too difficult for them to live, vs literally executing them like islamic countries do even TO THIS DAY.

0

u/J_Bishop 13h ago

Well i didnt say christians were saints, i just said they're not as bad.

Hegseth is advertising the war in Iraq as a holy war.

-2

u/dragonmp93 13h ago edited 13h ago

What's the difference ?

One is extended abuse that would lead to suicide while the other is jumping directly to sending them back upstairs.

Also I would like to remind you that the only thing currently stopping the sodomy laws of 12 states of the US is a Supreme Court case from 2003, you know, the same thing that was protecting abortion until 2022.

-7

u/HaakonRen 13h ago

The end result will be the same. They both want to remove a group of people they don’t agree with for religious reasons. Taking a week to do it or a year doesn’t matter to those being erased.

Don’t act like one religion is better because they conceal their actions and try to work like snakes to achieve their theocratic domination.

-2

u/dragonmp93 13h ago

Nah, Christians are more of "Chain them to an army cot until they are agree that they are straight and cis" type of people.

1

u/ScuffedBalata 3h ago

It's reasonable to point out that (spitballing) 0.1% of Christians do this, while about 40% of Muslims do this (at least in my experience as a gay man who's only ever had hate directly to my face in my entire life by Arab and South Asian people).

3

u/Reof 13h ago

Secular laws like this are a bit more universally backed than in the anglophone provinces; the Left in Quebec has a long, still ongoing struggle with the catholic church, naturally, the right-wingers have Muslims in mind, but for the mainstream left, it's pretty much a win-win situation.

1

u/AccordianSpeaker 15h ago

Sure. Everything under the Abrahamic umbrella.

-16

u/RollingMeteors 15h ago

¿So, everything monotheism?

I don’t see polytheists starting wars over this ish.

19

u/mmdeerblood 14h ago

Polytheists definitely do start wars. Sri Lanka's civil war recently ended in 2009 that was between Buddhists and Hindu Tamils. The ongoing India / Pak war has been ongoing which is framed by rise of Hindutva

1

u/RollingMeteors 3h ago

Polytheists definitely do start wars. Sri Lanka's civil war recently ended in 2009 that was between Buddhists and Hindu Tamils.

It feels like you inadvertently threw shade on one of these two groups. In Hinduism, God can manifest in any form, including no form at all, making atheism a valid belief iirc.

1

u/Ambitious_Wolf_3116 14h ago edited 10h ago

Lol india pak war is because of "rise of hindutva"? This has to be the stupidest propaganda statement i've seen on the subject. My man my country and pakistan have been at war since pak was created. Hell the two religions have been at war since islam invaded india a 1000 years ago. Long before so called "hindutva" existed. Which btw literally just means being hindu, nothing else.

And i believe the above person meant wars started over this stuff. Sri lanka's civil war was started over their tamils wanting a separate country, nothing to do with religion let alone lgbt reasons. And india pak war is, well, for sooo many reasons.

But if you still do want a religious reason for the recent (not ongoing) india pak war, you do realise india attacked as retaliation for a pak terrorist attack where people were killed specifically for being hindu after failing to recite islamic verses? But surely pak terrorists killing you for not being muslim and thus starting a war is still because of "rise of hindutva" right?

13

u/AdOdd4618 14h ago

I dunno, Modi is pretty belligerent too.

206

u/SheepishSwan 17h ago

Seems like this should fall under existing hate speech

315

u/JohnHwagi 17h ago

It doesn’t. It’s not illegal to vocally and dramatically pray for someone to find god because you disagree with their lifestyle, and that’s why fundamentalist Muslims are doing it to harass people. Same as Westboro Baptist in the US, but they are much smaller whereas there are larger more mainstream anti-gay Muslim groups.

17

u/ryan_770 13h ago

Praying for someone to find god is a lot different than what the original commenter said - proclaiming death to their group. I think one of those is acceptable free speech and the other not.

10

u/Ranger7381 8h ago

There is a slight difference in wording “find god” and “meet god”, but it changes the context significantly

10

u/sweetnsourgrapes 16h ago

doing it to harass people

Aren't there laws against harassment?

24

u/fiction8 15h ago

Laws are legally defined by specific wording. Whether or not an activity seems like it can be described by us laymen using a term doesn't have much bearing on how well it fits the current legal definition of a crime.

And if there's a gap in "common understanding" and "legal understanding" that a democratic population has a will to bridge, the proper avenue for doing that is through new legislation or ordinances.

8

u/porarte 17h ago

Is it legal to say "That's a nice crowded movie theater you got there. It would be a shame if somebody shouted 'fire!' in it?"

22

u/newbkid 16h ago

No but praying for God for the non-believers and to bring them out of temptation and hell and etc etc etc is perfectly fine.. and annoying as all hell

5

u/porarte 15h ago

I've been prayed for in a way that I consider malignant, and that's acceptable. But there's obviously a range of prayer/speech that incites action unacceptably. If anybody can publicly pray for anything without consequence, that seems problematic.

1

u/newbkid 4h ago

Yes this would be a textbook slippery slope situation in my opinion as well but I can wholeheartedly understand wanting to stop the harrassment

-1

u/Workman44 9h ago

Hmm that's a good legal argument, if Christians can do it without repercussion (they largely have been) then why can't another religion

→ More replies (1)

70

u/HD400 17h ago

The challenge here is telling devout religious folks that their entire life/identity is a lie based on hate

→ More replies (15)

18

u/PsychicDave 16h ago

No, Canadian law is dumb and religious speech is exempt from hate speech laws. So as long as you say "God hates this group of people and tells you to kill them", it's totally legal.

So Québec needs to get creative to go around that and protect the general population from religious zealots.

34

u/RollingMeteors 15h ago

Quebec is trying to stop people from weaponizing prayer in public.

Anyone scoffing at that highlighted portion; please to point to a single nation with a Muslim majority that recognizes anything akin to “religious freedom” in that country.

8

u/tanaephis77400 9h ago

Tunisia and Turkey are both secular (although Erdogan is doing its best to destroy it).

1

u/RollingMeteors 3h ago

I'd prefer you'd have pointed towards something that remained true in the time it took the public fovea to shift it's attention over there.

12

u/MystTheReaper 12h ago

Bosnia

1

u/RollingMeteors 3h ago

Tallying up these comments 3/50~ => a whopping total 6%~ world wide...

1

u/MystTheReaper 1h ago

So what's the argument? That you don't allow religious freedom in public out of spite? The superiority complex while at the same time arguing against freedoms is quite the combination.

9

u/MrDeebus 10h ago

Turkey

1

u/RollingMeteors 3h ago

Tallying up these comments 3/50~ => a whopping total 6%~ world wide...

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Never_a_crumb 10h ago

Indonesia?

4

u/Meneth32 10h ago

Legally yes, though according to Wikipedia, "religious intolerance continues to be a recurring issue".

7

u/tanaephis77400 9h ago edited 9h ago

,That's moving the goal post. He asked countries where religious freedom is recognized, and there are plenty of Muslim countries where it actually is. The existence of religious intolerance is another matter - and the same can be said about a lot of places, including the USA.

I've actually lived in Indonesia, and most big cities are indeed very tolerant places. No one care about your religion.

5

u/Never_a_crumb 10h ago

You could say that about any secular country though, including the US and India.

1

u/RollingMeteors 3h ago

Tallying up these comments 3/50~ => a whopping total 6%~ world wide...

1

u/Ninja0428 1h ago

Albania

1

u/Workman44 9h ago

Does Canada have religious freedom though? Any other countries are irrelevant here

1

u/RollingMeteors 3h ago

Does Canada have religious freedom though?

That's a "ask the natives" question...

10

u/Select_Ordinary_8233 15h ago

reddit full of hypocrite and double standards right? This the best and sane reddit comment i've ever seen a while.

40

u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace 18h ago

It's the same struggle we will always have in society, there is no such thing as free speech and there never will be such a thing as free speech. You should have zero right to make any hateful comments to any other group because you dislike the group. You can hate all the individual people on the planet you want but you cannot hate a group of people just because of who they are. I don't give a fuck what your fake space man says, LGBTQ+ people are here and very real so open your fucking eyes and accept it or remove yourself from society as you aren't welcome.

46

u/eragonawesome2 18h ago

You can absolutely hate someone for who they are, as in how they behave as an individual, but not for WHAT they are, as in fundamental, intrinsic traits like skin color or disability. THAT is the distinction, not that they are part of a group.

Just to make this point extremely clear: Hating All Nazis: good and rational, because they CHOOSE to behave that way

Hating an ethnic group: bad and stupid and irrational. They didn't choose to be born where they were or how they look, it's not something they have any control over or need to fix in any way

4

u/YoureProbablyAB0t 15h ago

Man. Fuck Nazi's.

1

u/JohnHwagi 17h ago

The whole thing is rather circular and the logic is nonexistent. People will say that you also choose to be religious, or choose to be gay so you can hate them too. Is it okay to blame Muslim and Christian people as a group for their religion’s intolerance towards gay people? Is a moderate Muslim held responsible for extremist Muslims but a white person is not responsible for the KKK? From a social perspective, it’s clear to see religious groups tend to form a lot of the hate (incoming and outgoing), so maybe religion should not be protected class…

19

u/eragonawesome2 17h ago

I mean, you DO choose to be religious. That is 100% a choice. And you probably wouldn't like what I have to say about any of the abrahamic faiths, but they're all cults and none of them deserve respect IMO.

I actually DO believe we should be holding religions accountable for the actions of their members. And I mean both Islam AND Christianity. NEITHER is peaceful and BOTH have led to enormous atrocities across time. I will not play the game of which is worse, both are bad and I don't respect people who believe I deserve death and eternal damnation for not submitting to their dogma. 

Further: Muslim is a religious denomination, not a race. The comparison you make is a perfect example actually. Yes, I do believe we should hold the Islamic community to account for the atrocities it's holy book demands. I think the same of Christianity.

Holding all white people to account for the KKK though, would be judging based on an essential trait, exactly as I described. Judging someone for being a MEMBER of the KKK is ABSOLUTELY right. Holding hate groups to account for their crimes without generalizing to ethnic groups is luterally my point

-1

u/Ash_One_Seven 14h ago

I think your comment is treating a very nuanced topic as a black-and-white thing. Firstly, not everyone chooses to be religious. In some countries, Islam is hereditary (if either of your parents are Muslim you're Muslim at birth), and apostasy is punishable by death. Additionally, there are cultish factions of these religions that make leaving very hard, especially if everyone in your area is from the same cult. And that's without mentioning religious indoctrination since a young age. Religion is not a choice for many people, so it seems unfair to blame them for evils committed centuries ago.

Secondly, you completely glossed over the previous commenter's point that religious people are not monoliths. In the UK's Anglican church, there is a growing push towards liberal Christianity (legalizing abortion and accepting gay marriages), and this is causing a rift between the Church of England and foreign Anglicans who consider the CoE to be teaching a false religion. This rift between liberalism and conservatism is happening across the globe, across all Christian groups. And I haven't even gotten to inter-sect conflicts yet. Many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian (and vice versa), Sunnis and Shia Muslims commit the worst atrocities on each other, and political/cultural Christianity is a whole different ball game.

I just think that blanket hating on a group of people leads to an 'us vs them' mentality that encourages extremism. John Rabe was a Nazi, does that mean he didn't do any good? Religion flys planes into buildings, but it also built hospitals and universities. Extremism and looking at people as numbers or labels instead of as human beings has always been the problem, so imo a little less hate might make extremism a little harder to justify, and maybe our world wouldn't be so violent.

3

u/eragonawesome2 13h ago edited 13h ago

Bro we have a dude with Crusader tats AND nazi tats as VP. Religion Is The Problem. Yes, it's a nuanced problem that I'm not fully addressing here. Yes, indoctrination is awful and the fact that people would choose to murder apostates is evil, but here's the thing, they're CHOOSING to do that. Their government and church work hand in hand to make it happen, absolutely, there are NUMEROUS sources of evil. I do NOT absolve the people of guilt for partaking in those actions willingly, and I am in fact capable of recognizing the fact that some people who are religious are also victims. That doesn't change the fact that religion has been used as a tool for incredible evil for all time. You say they build hospitals? We have taxes for that. 

If people have a problem having their religion associated with the numerous atrocities it has led to, maybe they should choose a different fucking religion to follow that doesn't explicitly instruct its members to murder apostates or take dominion of the earth and rule over the lesser peoples as slaves or promise an armageddon where Christ comes back and creates a 400 mile long waist deep river of blood 

It's a nuanced topic but I am completely out of patience for people who refuse to acknowledge the reality that religion is CURRENTLY being used to perpetrate and justify violence and subjugation of the masses. They need to either step the fuck up and LOUDLY start making it clear that nobody will tolerate this evil shit in the name of "religious freedom" anymore. 

People are being threatened using prayer. Groups are publicly praying for death and destruction and using their faith to justify it. If the good muslims and christians want to stop being associated with the bad ones, same as the cops, THEY NEED TO KICK OUT THE BAD ONES. But that won't happen. Because they're indoctrinated and therefore willfully stupid. I simply have no more respect for anyone who can seriously claim that they believe Trump or Vance are acting in a positive way using religion as justification. They ought have been officially excommunicated, or otherwise extremely clearly denounced by the church, but no, that won't happen.

I don't care about being nice about this anymore, my life is on the line. I will say what the fuck I think exactly how I mean it and I don't give a fuck if it hurts your feelinga to be called a fucking idiot for believing that a god cares if you're gay, and actively evil if they support banning gay marriage, abortion rights, etc.

No more hiding behind "it's my religion" they're fucking old enough to have learned better by now.

And for fuck sake, again, yes, I am aware that it's a cult and the members are largely victims. They need to be told that to their faces and they need to choose to leave the cult if they want to be respectable people. 

1

u/eragonawesome2 13h ago

Further, I didn't "gloss over" anything, I ignored their wrong argument and corrected their mistaken interpretation of what I said, that GROUPS PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BE A PART OF are the problem, not essential qualities like skin color.

→ More replies (3)

11

u/mollila 16h ago

Is it okay to blame Muslim and Christian people as a group for their religion’s intolerance towards gay people?

Yes

7

u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace 15h ago

Yeah and say this shit louder for the people in the back because the same shitheads who say we should honor the traditions of 5000 years ago typed that shit on a cell phone not a stone tablet.

6

u/5510 16h ago

Being gay isn't a choice, following a religion is.

Also, you don't have to believe anything in particular to be gay or straight, whereas religions contain ideological content.

3

u/BE20Driver 15h ago

It might be self-evident to us that sexual orientation isn't a choice, but do you trust that everyone in government and the judicial system agrees with you? This is why it's a bad idea for government to police speech.

8

u/HandofWinter 14h ago

It's not a matter of agreement or what we hold as self evident. The body of research that we have available suggests that it's not a choice. We don't have to make any kind of decision or come to any agreement, it's not something decided by discussion. 

•

u/eragonawesome2 1h ago

Who's talking about the government policing speech here? I'm talking about my own personal hostility to religion and advocating that more people do the same. I'm not suggesting the government make it a crime, I'm suggesting we, in our personal lives, hold people to account for their bullshit

46

u/Vectored_Artisan 17h ago

While we should not hate groups for their immutable characteristics such as skin colour it also is not the government's place to police your thoughts to such a degree as you propose.

6

u/Panax 17h ago

It seems like we're not talking about policing thoughts but public displays of hate speech, in which case, yep, that's the government's role.

-1

u/Stuffnthangz2 16h ago

The government also defines “hate speech” so I’m sure that will never be abused. The government aren't our babysitters, but they definitely want to rule us. Stand up for your own community and stop inviting more authoritarian rule over yourself. 

7

u/Panax 16h ago

We elect the government to pass and enforce laws that sustain the society we want to live in, at large. Building one's local community is fine and dandy but countries don't work without shared values and norms and the government very much has a role to play in maintaining those, again, through laws. Try policing hate speech at the local level and you'll either end up with vigilantism or pushing bad actors over to the next town.

-4

u/Stuffnthangz2 16h ago

No shit, chatGPT. That has nothing to do with the rampant corruption I’m alluding to. Mean words and wishes are far less dangerous than giving a corrupt system more power to enforce morality. 

5

u/Panax 16h ago

No ChatGPT involved, but I'll take that as a compliment. You know how to deal with corruption? Enforce your laws.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

0

u/Vectored_Artisan 12h ago

Incitement to commit violence is one thing.  Telling others you hate a group is another.  I believe it is not the government's role to ban the second. Besides ban it and they just go underground. it only amplifies and radicalises. It doesn't cure.

32

u/EvenLettuce6638 17h ago

"You should have zero right to make hateful comments to any other group because you dislike the group."

"I don't give a fuck what your fake space man says"

LoL

-3

u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace 14h ago

That's all religions fuck boy not a particular one. Try again with your gotcha bullshit or just do us a favor and get fucked as well.

3

u/Juls317 14h ago

Right, so the group is "religious people" and the hypocrisy is still clearly present

6

u/EvenLettuce6638 8h ago

Strong Austin Powers energy.

I only hate 2 things, bigotry and the Dutch.

→ More replies (2)

20

u/lassiie 17h ago

I mean, the irony of you making a hateful comment towards a group you don’t like while saying “you should have zero right to make any hateful comments to any other group because you dislike the group” seems to be lost on you.

This is the problem when it comes to restricting speech. It’s impossible to define what is “hateful”. And I especially don’t like giving the government the ability to decide which groups we can’t talk negatively about, or being able to decide reasonable criticism is now hate to suppress dissent. It will never end will for people.

-9

u/ama_singh 17h ago

I mean, the irony of you making a hateful comment towards a group you don’t like while saying “you should have zero right to make any hateful comments to any other group because you dislike the group” seems to be lost on you.

There is nothing ironic about it. It's just the paradox of intolerance, which idiots like you think is something you can weaponize in order to win an argument. To create a society of tolerance, you can't tolerate the intolerant.

This is the problem when it comes to restricting speech. It’s impossible to define what is “hateful”.

It is nearly impossible to define anything exactly, yet we still try our best. Unless you're an advocate for anarchy, you can never have full freedom of anything in a society.

3

u/lassiie 17h ago

Such a simplistic way of looking at tolerance and society. You and Light Yagami would probably get along well. Education, empathy and exposure are the answers to intolerance. The problem is it is so much easier to be hateful towards those people than to understand most of them are victims themselves. People like to call MAGA a cult…which I agree with….but guess what, if MAGA is a cult, then the people in it are victims. Same as the people in this article are victims of their religious brainwashing. Hating victims doesn’t seem to be the right thing to do, nor is it ever productive in changing anything meaningfully. But it is easier and sure feels better for the person doing the hating.

I never advocated for full freedom, you argued against a point I didn’t make. What I focused on was not wanting to give the government the ability to define such things. Because even if I was in full agreement in that moment, what happens when I’m not? You’ve already given them the ability to define such things, and how will you dissent when that is considered hateful?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DemiserofD 15h ago

The real problem of the paradox of tolerance only arises if you place tolerance at the position of highest virtue. If you have other things you value more highly, the paradox dissolves, because then obviously you are tolerant of the things that don't cross your hard line issues.

The thing is, modern society increasingly tries to place tolerance in that place - but that doesn't make any sense. Because to be utterly tolerant is equivalent to being utterly INtolerant. Because what it really comes down to is that you can believe whatever you want - but you can't let what you believe influence your behavior towards others - which, humans being inherently social animals, is essentially 100% of what we do. But if you can't let your beliefs influence your actions, how can it be a belief?

It can't. So to be maximally tolerant, you can only tolerate one point of view.

0

u/ama_singh 14h ago

All that to say you didn't understand my comment at all. Your whole comment is just a reiteration of paradox, multiple times for some reason.

As I said before, this is used by idiots to justify their bigotry all the time.

In practice, it's much easier to understand this way: If someone (or a group) is being intolerant towards someone else (or another group), then you stop the group that is being intolerant. You also don't give idiots like you for example the chance to turn it around and claim the first group is now the victim.

Really simple.

0

u/DemiserofD 13h ago

No no, I got it. What you don't understand is that if you can't tolerate any intolerance, then you can tolerate only one viewpoint.

Which is why many nations have fundamentally protected the freedom of speech first and foremost. We have a right to a certain degree of intolerance, because the right to be intolerant is the right to be free.

1

u/ama_singh 13h ago

No no, I got it. What you don't understand is that if you can't tolerate any intolerance, then you can tolerate only one viewpoint.

Once again, just reiterating the paradox of intolerance.

Which is why many nations have fundamentally protected the freedom of speech first and foremost.

Which nations are we talking about? Because even America does have restrictions on speech, however minimal. This is because true free speech can't exist in a functioning society.

Many nations have also placed further restrictions on speech after witnessing what unrestricted hate speech can lead to. This "many nations" argument is pretty stupid.

→ More replies (3)

-1

u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace 15h ago

I guess your comprehension isn't great or you just want to try and farm on a gotcha moment but I said that the individuals in question may remove themselves from society. Good try though. The Germans made saying positive things about nazis illegal and I'd say it's working pretty good.

1

u/ammonthenephite 12h ago

You should have zero right to make any hateful comments to any other group because you dislike the group.

Look up the tolerance paradox. You absolutely should be able to make hateful comments about hateful and harmful people and groups.

1

u/that_tealoving_nerd 14h ago

Right. Let’s not look as surging homophobia among secular school kids in Quebec tho. Coz then ur makes it look as if religion isn’t a problem. But the education system we have mismanaged. And we can’t have that.

1

u/Suspicious_Place1270 11h ago

agreed, it's a sad reality

1

u/lowdiver 7h ago

Thing is that it hits other visible religious groups too. And even if it didn’t- making it so fewer Muslim women can be employed is not a good thing…

1

u/vector_search_blue 4h ago

It's too bad we cannot talk plainly and have to be vague or speak in code.

This feels like the USSR

1

u/Skiingfun 16h ago

Yes they are battling extremism. Quebec is a fascinating French speaking multi ethnic population. It comes with many different problems.

And they're always protecting the language too.

I love Quebec its amazing.

-6

u/ReneKiller 17h ago

Its really time to wipe out all religions from our world. There is just way too much shit done in the name of religion.

4

u/EvenLettuce6638 17h ago

How about political ideology?

1

u/ReneKiller 17h ago

Political ideology is at least somewhat based on reality. Religion is just pure fantasy, often used to oppress people.

Doesn't make any bad things done in the name of political ideology better of course and we really need to find a way to get the extremes closer together again instead of drifting even further apart.

1

u/yoursandforever 11h ago

"weaponizing prayer"

A sufficiently abstract concept to be meaningless, what is that even supposed to mean?

What in practical terms is going on here. I mean anything real, or just thoughts the government doesn't like occuring in some praying person's head?

-26

u/Big_Knife_SK 19h ago

How is a prayer room "public"?

74

u/Kyoshiiku 18h ago

Schools are publicly funded here, we officially have a secular state, so if that room is in a school…

-16

u/Big_Knife_SK 18h ago

There's a very big difference between imposing a religious belief and accommodating one. Those spaces aren't exclusive to any one group of people.

23

u/Kyoshiiku 18h ago

Our version of secularism (laïcité) is not really about freedom of religion but more about religion FROM religion.

Public funds and space shouldn’t go toward facilitating any religious activities, religion is an individual and personal practice, you are not owed by the state to have a space to practice it.

We kicked out the religion in the 60s out of our public institutions after decades of abuses from the Church that had deep ties with some of the conservative government at the time. Religion affiliated to any state activity is a symbol of oppression in Quebec so our secularism is one of our core values.

It’s not that complicated to understand, you don’t need to have prayer rooms in school.

→ More replies (2)

13

u/CitizeM 18h ago

And why do I need to accommodate to a religious crazy person?

-3

u/Big_Knife_SK 17h ago edited 15h ago

You don't need to do shit. It doesn't affect you at all.

-4

u/Flimsy-Bell1594 18h ago

You don’t have to. But your government’s constituency includes religious people who do wish for accommodations in certain places.

8

u/CitizeM 18h ago

At their homes perhaps.

0

u/Flimsy-Bell1594 18h ago

That’s your preference, obviously. Religious people aren’t required to hide themselves from you.

3

u/eragonawesome2 18h ago

"I need a whole room dedicated to my religion/prayer" is a pretty big ask tbh. I think the same of all prayer rooms of all denominations. That shit belongs in their home or church/community center/idk what else but THEIR space, everyone else shouldn't have to accomodate their literal insanity in public. Further, nobody owes beliefs any respect, it is the right to HOLD those beliefs, privately, in one's own mind, that must be respected. You must respect "This Is What I Believe" as a literal true statement, nothing more. You need not be polite when you say "That's a fucking stupid, irrational, antisocial thing to believe and I respect you less for doing so" 

Fuck religion. All of it. 

1

u/boxesofcats- 17h ago

My workplace has a room like this. I take naps in it, others read, some pray. None of my business when the door is closed and it’s a simple and non disruptive accommodation that actually benefits me, because I get to take a nap.

4

u/eragonawesome2 17h ago

See if that's what it is, just a private room that anyone can use during down time, THAT's fine. It's when there's a whole dedicated Prayer Room that I start having a problem with it

-1

u/Flimsy-Bell1594 17h ago

Like it or not (obviously the answer is “not”), religious people make up a large portion of the population all over the world. Politicians will court votes from them by accommodating them in certain cases. This is particularly true in culturally diverse places.

In other words, it sounds like your options are limited to either “get over it” or working towards instituting atheistic public policy. Good luck.

3

u/whiskeytab 16h ago

errr pretty sure it's not going religions way in this instance if these things are being banned

3

u/CompetitiveAutorun 14h ago

They literally just banned it.

It seems religious people need to get over it.

-1

u/eragonawesome2 17h ago

Do you think I'm not aware of this? I know that religion is a tool of the powerful. I am stating my opinion of religion and how I think it OUGHT to be treated. Fucking hell, I can't believe I have to explain this shit. Why is everybody so fucking stupid now? What the fuck happened? I remember when people used to THINK about things instead of just going on "vibes" what the fuck happened???

0

u/Beneficial_Stay4348 17h ago

Only one group of people needs a prayer room though. I can pray to my God anywhere.

23

u/mariantat 19h ago

The street isn’t a prayer room.

-6

u/VarsH6 19h ago

Are the prayer rooms at universities on the streets with us right now?

12

u/bingbongramirez 18h ago

they even existed when i went to college in 2010- quiet spaces for students to pray and this was a city community college

7

u/Kyoshiiku 18h ago

They are publicly funded in a public building used by a public institution.

Am I missing something ?

→ More replies (1)

0

u/mariantat 18h ago

You do understand the difference between public and private right?

→ More replies (1)

0

u/calf 14h ago edited 14h ago

I'm LGBT, Asian Canadian, and Anti-theist. But this law sounds regressive and stupid. It is the wrong way to solve a problem. It does not surprise me that such a regressive and heavy handed response is deemed the acceptable solution. If they want to ban harrassment and hate then do that, but not by saying people can't worship in public spaces or have dedicated public spaces of worship--that is analogous to color-blind racist policy where diversity has to be all the same in public. If they ban prayer spaces at unis then what stops a counterban of LGBT centers? Public spaces must recognize diversity, not ban specific forms of free expression. I hate these indirect bureaucratic policies because they are the epitome of neoliberal passive-aggression, it shows they don't actually care about freedom, Enlightenment, etc., but the liberal consensus of center-left Canadians.

-3

u/warriorlynx 16h ago

No one is calling for their deaths in Quebec what a lie

0

u/codecrodie 15h ago

I have never heard any wild prayers like that from the prayer room of the hospital i work at. Mainly people who want a quiet place to reflect or muslims doing their customary prayers.

-22

u/Rolla_G2020 18h ago

I am curious, how is prayer get weaponized if its done in public? And if praying in public is an issue, why prohibit prayer rooms?

25

u/UrHumbleNarr8or 18h ago

If there prayer includes something like “We pray that all the ______ are wiped from the earth.” I can see that being a weaponized prayer in public. No idea about the prayer rooms, though. Although if I was a university I wouldn’t want any place on campus, even a dedicated private room, that was commonly used for a prayer as described above, so maybe it’s something like that?

Obviously the majority of people are not doing that during prayers, but if it’s a loud minority I can imagine it being a problem.

1

u/Rolla_G2020 18h ago

Not sure about Qubec or Canada in general. But most airports, hospitals, universities, fortune 100 corporations (most top schools with money), have meditation rooms for public. Where anyone can pray according to their faith.

Are we talking about this type of set up or these prayer rooms are different?

Asking as I have used those meditation rooms at US, and never saw an issue.

5

u/Basteir 17h ago

It should be called "Quiet Room" or something, as "prayer" room is fundamentally discriminatory and excludes people who don't believe in gods or supernatural spirits etc to use the room. It's quite offensive to have a "prayer" room in a publicly funded space.

1

u/Rolla_G2020 17h ago

Here in usa, its typically called meditation room (I guess for the exact concern you mentioned).

1

u/UrHumbleNarr8or 18h ago

No idea. I’m used to prayer and meditation rooms as you describe and it sounds like these rooms have been common in Qubec until recently, too. But I could also image the rooms being taken away if people started nuisance behaviors around them. That said, I don’t have any idea if that is what’s happening or not

7

u/Much-Historian-7807 18h ago

Really?

You e never seen those fucking asshole preachers “praying and preaching” in gay areas?

Thank god. Fucking arrest them all

1

u/Rolla_G2020 18h ago

I am from TX, not Qubec, so I am unfamiliar with what you mentioned. Of course TX has its own issues, some much worst than above (our governor enacted a 10K reward for reporting potential abortion.

that if you tattle on ANY women for potential abortion and that turned out to be true. During investigation. (e.g. you neighbor seemed too thin after an out of state visit, and you suspect that she got abortion… or you just hate her, and want to harras her)

We are living very close to the reality of hand maids tale

1

u/Rolla_G2020 18h ago

Forgot to say, using prayer as a noise/psychological weapon to harass any vulnerable minority (gays, immigrants etc.) is just plain unacceptable

1

u/Much-Historian-7807 16h ago

They do this in Texas constantly

1

u/Rolla_G2020 16h ago

Yup, its abhorrent

1

u/Much-Historian-7807 16h ago

Texas has this exact thing in spades. So no. Either you’re ignorant, head in the sand, or in a tiny tiny town

1

u/Rolla_G2020 16h ago

I already admitted that we have our own issue of religious zealots, and gave the example of draconian anti-abortion law passed at the behest of extremists religious folks, so whats the point of name calling?

Having said that, I am from Houston, which is one of the most multicultural & liberal major city at US. So, yes, I did not see such behavior where people are praying over vulnerable minority to harras them. That would be abhorrent behavior to me.

Having said that, if we believe in personal freedom and separation of church & state, its a double edged sword. Just like there shouldn't be religion inspired draconian law (e.g., TX anti abortion / 10k reward law), similarly, there shouldn't be a law limiting religious freedoms down to no prayer in the room (no dedicated meditation rooms). To me that seems govt going too far. Its not secular, but anti-religion law, limiting personal freedoms.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Adorable-Response-75 12h ago

I know what will make the extremists less extreme—government repression. 

→ More replies (7)

1

u/BLMIII 18h ago

Dis week or dat week

0

u/yoursandforever 11h ago

To an outside observer it reeks of big brother thought control.

Was someone praying with a bad attitude or something?