Quebec will now ban street prayers as the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) “super-minister” of identity, Jean-François Roberge, has just passed his bill to strengthen secularism.
Interesting to see so many comments defending religion, especially one particular religion. Anyway, IMO religion should be always a private matter. If you don’t like certain rules or laws, nobody is preventing you to leave and be happy somewhere else. So, if a Christian is not happy in a Muslim country due to restrictions, the person can move to a Christian or secular country. If a Muslim is not happy in a basically Christian or secular country, there are many Muslim countries, which will allow him or her to follow the rules of the religion. So, everybody is happy. Hence, what is the deal here?
Your opinion is a bit of a paradox, isn’t it? If religion was always a private matter you wouldn’t be able to go to any country and tell what religion that country is.
Part of the problem is that a few religions tell their followers that they own specific land, so they are competing to have exclusivity of that land instead of just going somewhere else.
The expansion of civilisations has always encroached on religions as well. You basically have to choose a point in time to say “starting now religions are allowed to exist in the countries they are already in.” Should the aboriginal Australians just go somewhere else if they don’t like the multicultural/multi-religiousness of modern Australia? What about native Americans if they don’t like capitalist Jesus?
I think the key issue is secularization. Many European countries went through long historical periods where religion dominated politics and public life, followed by centuries of conflict, reform, and eventually stronger separation between religion and state. Modern secular democracies in Europe are partly the result of learning from that history.
Not all religious traditions or societies went through the same process. In some places, religion still plays a central role in law, politics, and daily life, hence it is treated not just as personal belief, but as the basis for governing society.
That does not mean religion itself is uniquely bad or that every religious society behaves the same way. There are also belief systems deeply tied to culture, philosophy, or nature - for example Aborigines or certain Buddhist traditions - that historically were less focused on universal expansion or religious conquest.
The point is not „religion should disappear”, but that societies require separation between religious authority and state power. BTW, Jesus wasn’t a capitalist. If you would be like Jesus, you would be broke today.
Edit: removed redundant text from previous version.
Interesting to see so many comments defending religion, especially one particular religion. Anyway, IMO religion should be always a private matter. If you don’t like certain rules or laws, nobody is preventing you to leave and be happy somewhere else. So, if a Christian is not happy in a Muslim country due to restrictions, the person can move to a Christian or secular country. If a Muslim is not happy in a basically Christian or secular country, there are many Muslim countries, which will allow him or her to follow the rules of the religion. So, everybody is happy. Hence, what is the deal here?
“Just give up your home, job, and family and likely become a refugee if you don’t agree with the prevailing religion. What’s the big deal?”
Your opinion is a bit of a paradox, isn’t it? If religion was always a private matter you wouldn’t be able to go to any country and tell what religion that country is.
Part of the problem is that a few religions tell their followers that they own specific land, so they are competing to have exclusivity of that land instead of just going somewhere else.
The expansion of civilisations has always encroached on religions as well. You basically have to choose a point in time to say “starting now religions are allowed to exist in the countries they are already in.” Should the aboriginal Australians just go somewhere else if they don’t like the multicultural/multi-religiousness of modern Australia? What about native Americans if they don’t like capitalist Jesus?
I think the key issue is secularization. Many European countries went through long historical periods where religion dominated politics and public life, followed by centuries of conflict, reform, and eventually stronger separation between religion and state. Modern secular democracies in Europe are partly the result of learning from that history.
Not all religious traditions or societies went through the same process. In some places, religion still plays a central role in law, politics, and daily life, hence it is treated not just as personal belief, but as the basis for governing society.
That does not mean religion itself is uniquely bad or that every religious society behaves the same way. There are also belief systems deeply tied to culture, philosophy, or nature - for example Aborigines or certain Buddhist traditions - that historically were less focused on universal expansion or religious conquest.
The point is not „religion should disappear”, but that societies require separation between religious authority and state power. BTW, Jesus wasn’t a capitalist. If you would be like Jesus, you would be broke today.
Edit: removed redundant text from previous version.