Hypocrisy Reigns in Religous Debate

A ruling by Quebec's Tribunal des droits de la personne ordered an end to the practice of Christian prayers before city council meetings in the city of Saguenay, as well as demanding that the city remove the crucifix hanging in the debates hall. The decision is sending shock waves throughout Quebec. The court concluded that the mayor and council have deliberately attempted to impose their religious views on the public at the expense of their duty of neutrality. LINK{FR}

The city of Saguenay and it's fiercely religious mayor Jean Tremblay has fought tooth and nail against the idea of in any way removing affirmations of the Christian faith in the city administration.

The mayor was so annoyed that the city was hauled before the tribunal, that at a press conference, he directed some injudicious comments towards the plaintiff, Alain Simoneau and the Mouvement laïque québécois (Quebec secular movement,) which backed the case.

The judge was so annoyed with the recalcitrant mayor that she added $15,000 in punitive damages to  the original $15,000 compensation for his 'illicit and intentional' behaviour. LINK{FR}

See my previous blog piece - Saguenay Mayor Leads Idiot Parade in Religious Debate

The litigious mayor, has already announced that the city will appeal the decision and is asking the public to make donations to finance the court battle. He's come under fire for wasting city resources and has already spent almost $60,000 defending his and council member's right to pray before meetings. He is what lawyers like to refer as 'litigious,' a lawyers ultimate 'wet dream.' Mayor Tremblay has also undertaken other expensive legal battles which includes at least one protracted appeal to the Supreme Court.

Click to see donation page

The city has added a page on its municipal website to collect funds for its legal defence fund and has already collected $23,000 in just two days.
Hmm....seems to me that putting up an image of Jesus shilling for money might also be a violation of the separation of church and state, but I'm just asking.......

The court ruling has quickly sparked a debate over the Crucifix in the National Assembly where politicians have already voted in favour of keeping the Christian symbol above the speakers chair, under the guise that it is part of Quebec 'heritage' and doesn't necessarily represent support for any certain religion. Hmmmm.......

Kathleen Weil, the NDG anglo sellout Minister of Justice, was one of the first to give an interview supporting the Crucifix and repeated the fiction that it wasn't a 'religious' symbol.

Lousie Beaudoin, the PQ hardliner has also given an interview and asked the rhetorical question as to why it is okay to accommodate other religions, but not that of the majority.

A good question, except when did Beaudoin ever support religious accommodations for minorities?

The Crucifix in the National Assembly remains problematic and understandably leads to all sorts of problems as in the recent case of a Montreal cabbie who wants to preserve religious paraphernalia in his cab.
Yesterday news came that the Jewish cabbie had a fine upheld in court in regard to decorating his cab with Jewish religious articles. The taxi authority has rules against these types of expressions and it seems to me like a good idea not to turn cabs into shrines to Allah, Jehovah, Jesus or Shiva.
Now if the taxi authorities could only regulate the music that cabbies play on their radio, I'd be very appreciative. ....but I digress!  

"Mr. Perecowicz said he will appeal and is ready to take the case as far as the Supreme Court. He says it's unfair that he cannot display his Jewish prayer scroll in his cab, while a crucifix hangs over the speaker's chair in Quebec's National Assembly." LINK

He might have a point.

The issue seems to have sparked quite an emotional reaction across the province with two cities, Laval and Trois-Rivieres, already refusing to apply similar rulings in their town halls. 

The thorny issue of religion in public life has rocked many other countries and is not a Quebec-only debate. Recently Italy is appealing a European Court of Human Rights ruling that crucifixes be removed from schools. It has also employed the same cockamamie argument that the crucifix is a historic heritage symbol and thus can be displayed in every classroom. Greece and Russia have joined 10 other countries as third-parties in support of Italy. Link

The issue is contentious because Quebeckers have embraced public secularism in an attempt to check the influence of those with profound religious beliefs from having too much influence in public policy. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

But the advancement of secularism is a two-edged sword, as the Mayor of Saguenay found out. If you want to ban Hijabs and Niqibs in public you have to get rid of the cross. Anything else is hypocrisy.

The small but plucky Mouvement laïque québécois is taking advantage of the confused situation to advance their program of removing all religion, even Christianity,  from public life.

Although less than 6% of Quebeckers attend Church on a regular basis, it  doesn't stop them from considering themselves 'Catholics' just the same.

How the situation can possibly resolve itself remains a mystery. Clearly the majority want Quebec society to reflect its Christian heritage without forcing Christianity upon anybody.

That being said, it means the tolerance of other religious symbols and it entails making certain religious accommodations, something most are against.

As they say on the street, you can't suck and blow at the same time!

If we listen to the secular extremists, we'd have to rename every street bearing a Christian appellation, remove the Crucifix from Mont-Royal and every public building and school in Quebec. Christian holidays including Easter and Christmas would no longer be paid public holidays. The government would be barred from offering any public funding to schools that included religious instruction.

I don't accept that concept, considering that people of faith pay taxes too and as such can expect to have those taxes support schools that follow government mandated courses, in addition to religion. To deny them this right is to impose by taxation, a form of secularism.

Next there are those who want to maintain Quebec as a Christian state (like the Mayor of Saguenay) with Christianity as the state religion. Schools would go back to teaching Christianity and those of a different mind could opt out of classes. Again, I'm not particularly in favour of that.

Then there are those who'd like to maintain the status quo, where the state is officially secular but remains attached to its Christian heritage. Religion is taken out of schools but private schools providing religious instruction remain subsidized. Minorities can expect some accommodations, but not those that conflict with the general tenets by which secular society operates.

It's a wishy washy solution that I sort of believe is the best answer. 

Let's be honest, the whole question is a toughie. I think anybody who has a sure solution is probably a hardliner.