While lapsed or reluctant Christians have abandoned the Church in droves, they remain unwilling to part with the symbols and trappings of their Christian heritage.
There's no doubt that the position is a bit ambiguous, but interestingly most of those who have become 'non-practising' or lapsed, remain firmly attached to the philosophy and teachings of the the Church, nonetheless.
Like it or not, those advocating secularism in public must accept that the fundamental tenets of our society are based on the Judeo-Christian values described in the Ten Commandments and that those values remain as legitimate to the non-practicing as to the orthodox.
And so, most Christians, practicing or not, believe that traditional Christian symbols, the crucifix included, remain a symbol of these societal values that all can share.
Removing Christian symbols from the public, is not as easy a question to decide as those in the secular movement would have us believe and the question is certainly not exclusive to Quebec.
Europe has been grappling with this very same question for quite a while now and recently an interesting court decision came down.
"The European Court for Human Rights has ruled Italy has the right to have crucifixes in the country's schools. The sentence passed by the Grande Chambre overturns the sentence dated November 3rd 2009, which had found Italy guilty of violating religious freedom, following an appeal..... The judges established that there is nothing to prove that students are allegedly influenced by the presence of the crucifix in classrooms." Link
"In fact, the Court recognized that in countries with a Christian tradition, Christianity has a specific social legitimacy which is distinct from other philosophical and religious beliefs and justifies the adoption of a differential approach where necessary. It is because Italy is a country of Christian tradition that the Christian symbol can legitimately have a specific visible presence in society" Read the Court DecisionRemoving all vestiges of Christian tradition in public is no easy task. The secularists demand that crucifixes should be taken down from public buildings and that the state must remain firmly neutral vis-a-vis religion in public.
But taking that argument to its logical conclusion, it would mean the elimination of Christmas and Easter as public holidays and would require the removal of the Christian names from our towns and streets.
Interestingly the pressure to remove Christian symbols from public display hasn't come from the minority religions who seem to have no dog in the fight. As long as they are free to practice their own religion in public, they seem at ease with public displays of Christianity.
And that may be the rub.
Many of those asking to remove public Christian symbols, are in fact promoting a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with secularism.
The rise of Islam in Quebec and the perceived attendant threat to society is driving many to embrace public secularism in an effort to thwart Muslims from publicly advancing orthodox Islamism on society in general.
The veil, Sharia law, the inequality of the sexes and other religious fundamentalist beliefs are an anathema to mainstream Quebeckers and restricting the proliferation of these ideas is of no small import to most Quebeckers.
Many of those pushing for secularism are actually pursuing a strategy whereby they are ready to sacrifice their Christian symbols in order to make sure that Muslims and the trappings of orthodox Islamism can't make inroads.
It may be a question of deliberately throwing out the baby with the bath water and it's a part of the secular vs. religion debate that nobody is willing to speak about.
When the trade unions and womens groups speak out against public displays of Christianity and when politicians rail in favour of strict neutrality, their passion and zeal is mostly based on an anti-Islam agenda.
The spectre of loudspeakers blasting from minarets in local neighbourhoods, calling Muslims to prayer many times a day is frightening. The idea of veils and Sharia law becoming part of our life is so unnerving that desperate measures seem to be called for.
Many won't like what I'm saying, but the question remains;
Is not Quebec's panicked rush to secularism, simply a reaction to the infiltration of Islam in public life?
Hold the pea soup, Islamophobia is alive and well in Quebec. Anti-Muslim rhetoric has become just as accepted in Quebec as anti-Anglo rhetoric. The irony is that Bill 101 and Quebec’s preference for picking French speaking immigrants is the reason more and more Muslims are settling in Montreal. Former French colonies in North Africa and the Middle East are a major source of Quebec’s immigrants much to the chagrin of the Islamophobes in Quebec. I predict all the abandoned churches in and around Montreal will be converted into Mosques eventually.
ReplyDeleteAnother in a long line of terrible articles, based entireley on the author's feverish imagination and including absolutely no proof whatsoever.
ReplyDelete"Is not Quebec's panicked rush to secularism, simply a reaction to the infiltration of Islam in public life?"
Laughable. Secularisation of Québec started in the 60's and progressed in the 70's, 80's and 90's when there were much fewer muslims here. How does THAT fit your little theory?
As for the much-publicised crucifix issue, it's happening in Saguenay, where there are no muslims at all. What fear of Islam? The issue is driven by equally stubborn atheist groups and the Saguenay mayor, not by the wishes of the greater public. For most Québécois, a crucifix is a cultural and historic artifact of our past, a not a symbol of faith. That is why we resist pressures to remove them.
A supposed "fear of Islam" is not even remotely present in that debate, but of course it is once again a convenient way for you to try branding Québecois as intolerant. For someone who writes so much about our province, you are stunningly ignorant about our culture and issues. Remaining anonymous is evidently the only way for you to shield yourself from being held accountable for your badly researched and biased articles.
Another sad complaint about my anonymity from an anonymous poster.
ReplyDeleteDo you also complain about smokers with a cigarette hanging from your mouth?
Running out of argurments, are you? I'm not the onw broadcasting my highly biased views on the internet 300 times a year. If you stood by what you wrote, you would put your name behind it. Although I can't really blame you on the article above. It truly is a perfect example of the sometimes perverse effects of internet blogs... no quality, and anybody can say anything without backing it up.
ReplyDeleteTry to actually defend the article above, and we'll see if you actually beleive in what you write.
He get a point here, at least put your name in your blog. And dont use the escuse that you are afraid to be hunted down/killed and sue for your opinion....it will be a coward escuse.
ReplyDeleteIf retard peoples like Louis Prefontaine can write his own name on his blog, i am pretty sure a man like you, less lunactic than this guy ((i hope so)), can put your name and stand your opinion with proud ((i guess...)).
Otherwise, you give the feeling you just want to fart on peoples and runway behind the power of the ANONYMOUS.Easy game.
My name is Mathieu Duchesne,i am damn seppy and i have nothing to hide.
I cannot blame the editor, read what type of retribution people that come out against the national-socialist of this province. His main job is not to write this blog, knowing the type of yahoos in this province where even the busoiness elite is afraid to make waves and express their opinions for fear of reprisal, i cannot blame him one bit. And the main reason you are so dead set in getting his name, is simply to exercise slander and threats against him. You could not care less. Knowing the name of a person expressing an idea, should not and does not change how we evaluate such opinion. Anonymous or pen name writing has existed to protect individual writing such pamphlet.
ReplyDeleteYou sir are a bully and a thug, who views makes choice based on who a person his and not the content of what that person says.
And to paraphrase Fez in that 70's show, i said good day!
Anon 9:37am: "I'm not the onw broadcasting my highly biased views on the internet 300 times a year"
ReplyDeleteWhat's stopping you? Fell out of favours with vigile.net? Try Mouvement Montreal en Francais, SSJB or Le Devoir.
"And the main reason you are so dead set in getting his name, is simply to exercise slander and threats against him."
ReplyDeleteYou mean like he does to Préfontaine, Beaulieu, Barbéris-Fervais, the vigile.net guy, Pierre Curzi, Pauline Landry, Yves Michaud, Parizeau and anybody else he personally bashes and, I believe, slanders. To engage in that sort of thing anonymously is the height of hypocrisy. He accused a bunch of people of being antisemites, and he should have the guts to make his accusations in the open. Those people do use their names.
"Knowing the name of a person expressing an idea, should not and does not change how we evaluate such opinion."
Of course it does, if only for the fact that this person has the guts to stand behind his comments. This is not a gossip blog, a celebrity blog, a hockey blog or a technology blog. No Dogs makes accusations of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, antisemitism, corruption, and countless others every day. This is serious stuff, and hiding his identity, IMO, completely invalidates his message. If you can't say something without daring to show your face, then you have a credibility problem.
Its easy for alot of these seppie chauvanist types to remain anonymous because so many of them are on welfare, so don't have to worry about economic retaliation against them.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is an opinion piece with little corroborating facts, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Is this all about Muslims? For some probably yes, for others definitely not.
ReplyDeleteMost people who push secularism in this province, push a particular brand of secularism in which Christianity is exempt, and that I feel is the main issue. I know that anonymous 8:58 sees a distinction between secularism with preserved Christian symbols (because of "Quebec Heritage") and Christian favoritism (read racism). But what he fails to see how the rest of us can view this, rightfully so, as racism. I'm Jewish and the crucifix on the mountain never bothered me. Nor Christmas trees, crucifix at court....... What bothers me is Pauline Marois stating that the government must become secular and that institutions with religious names must be changed...... except if that name is protected by Quebec heritage. Meaning that Hospital Notre Dame is ok because that is a Quebeckish name while the Jewish General Hospital would have to be renamed (maybe St. Pauline Hospital?). Like I said, I don't need forced secularism, especially if it's only forced upon non-Christians. Once again, this not a statement that all French Canadians are racist, just those that push for Christianity exempt secularism.
As for remaining anonymous. That's a no brainer. In this heated political climate remaining anonymous is the only way to ensure safety for one's self and for one's employment. I don't feel political ideology should affect your business life, but other's disagree and so we should all remain anonymous.
[Of course it does, if only for the fact that this person has the guts to stand behind his comments.]
ReplyDeleteThen some of the best polemist would not have written anything if it was so. You claim he does slander, i call BS, he states facts, just argument against those facts and we have a debate, you seem to really want to attack him personally. BTW the person he attack are public individuals, he has the right to remain anonymous.
"I know that anonymous 8:58 sees a distinction between secularism with preserved Christian symbols (because of "Quebec Heritage") and Christian favoritism (read racism). But what he fails to see how the rest of us can view this, rightfully so, as racism. I'm Jewish and the crucifix on the mountain never bothered me. Nor Christmas trees, crucifix at court....... What bothers me is Pauline Marois stating that the government must become secular and that institutions with religious names must be changed...... except if that name is protected by Quebec heritage. Meaning that Hospital Notre Dame is ok because that is a Quebeckish name while the Jewish General Hospital would have to be renamed (maybe St. Pauline Hospital?). Like I said, I don't need forced secularism, especially if it's only forced upon non-Christians."
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you got your quotes, but the debate is not about the governemnt becoming secular, it is about the governement STAYING secular, hence all the hoopla about the veil (which does not personally bother me that much).
I also don't know the source of the ideao that we will be renaming things, but IMO the difference that if a school is named Notre-Dame-de-la-Merci, it stays, but if somebody would name a a new public school "Christ-le-rédempteur" that would be rejected.
And what could possibly make anybody think that the "Jewish General" would have to change it's name just because of the word jewish is beyond me. I'm really tired of that kind of jewish victimhood that seems to be everywhere on this blog, because it is baseless and because the aim is to indirectly imply that everybody else is an antisemite.
"You claim he does slander, i call BS, he states facts, just argument against those facts and we have a debate, you seem to really want to attack him personally. BTW the person he attack are public individuals, he has the right to remain anonymous."
ReplyDeleteI say that accusing someone of being a racist, bigot, xenophone, antisemite, etc. on an almost daily basis does constitute slandar, that that is the reason he does not want to face his detractors in the open. And despite our "heated political climate" there are dozens, if not hundreds, of legitimate journalists and bloggers who write about quebec politics from both sides and nobody was sued or lost their jobs, because their speech is protected. I assure you that if this site were better known among francophones you would get a hundred times more negative comments, but Mr Editor would still be safe and unharmed. If Jan Wong can come to Québec without a police escort, so can he.
Interesting drift to this discussion. Anonymous 1:09 said: "I say that accusing someone of being a racist, bigot, xenophone, antisemite, etc. on an almost daily basis does constitute slandar, that that is the reason he does not want to face his detractors in the open."
ReplyDeleteIf the person in question IS a racist, bigoted, xenophobic antisemite, then it's not "slandar", but an accurate description. For 1:09 and the rest of the contributors/wannabes who've missed their rabies shots, let's have a quick history review:
1)which group has bombed mail boxes in the past:
a) Seppies, b) Anglos or c) Allos
2)Which group has kidnapped cabinet ministers and diplomats:
a)Seppies, b) Anglos or c) Allos
3) Which group has killed a cabinet minister:
a)Seppies, b) Anglos or c) Allos
4) Which group is aggressively in favour of trampling minority language rights:
a) Seppies, b) Anglos or c) Allos
5) Which group is more likely to be maliciously vindictive about things they don't like to see in print:
a) Seppies, b) Anglos or c) Allos
Can you spot a trend here? I would be shocked if the Editor faced no retalliation if he gave up his anonymity.
Oh poor victimized, traumatised anglophones... how can you live with those incessant terrorist acts that occured almost 40 years ago. We live in such a violent province.
ReplyDelete1)Which group has planted bombs in the past
a) Bikers b) Italian mafia c) Anti-military groups
2) Which group has suspended civil liberties and arrested hundreds of law abiding citizens recently
a) Anglos b) Federalists c) Federal politicians
3) Which group has killed and tortured women recently
a) Military officers b) Ontarians c) Men
4) Which group is aggresively in favor of trampling minority language rights
a) Canadians for language fairness b) The city of Sault Sainte-Marie, Ontario c) Ontario ministers of education
5) Which group is more likely to be maliciously vindictive about things they don't like to see in print
a) Jews b) Muslims c) No Dogs or Anglophones
This is a fun game, are there other atrocities you'd like to pin on certain "groups".
I'd like to stand up for the editor's right to remain anonymous if he so wishes. It makes his opinions and commentary no less valid, and certainly, NO LESS IMPORTANT.
ReplyDeleteIt's the climate in Quebec that makes one wary about using your real name. The French Quebecois separatists remind me very much of the Brown Shirts in the 1930's in places like Poland. They're entitled to state any opinion they want, do as they want and no one--not even the media, will so much as bat an eye lash.
However, as "Les Autres", you so much as hint at the idea of disagreeing with their racist bullshit and lies, and they'll certainly threaten or come after you.
I'm afraid to use my real name here. As a matter of fact, I'm wary about using my alias, because if you do some searching, it's not so difficult to link it back to my real name. I also fear for my family and pets, particularly since the Quebecois show disregard for animal life as seen by what goes on in this province.
It speaks volumes that English speakers should be fearful of their safety to speak out openingly about having their rights stepped on or standing up for freedom and equality. That's the way the Quebecois are, intimidation and threats, like the monsters they are. Look at Howard Galganov, he had to have personal bodyguards because of all the threats he received, and eventually had to leave Quebec.
All I can say is one day very, very soon the Quebecois separatist/racist/monsters will have what is coming to them. The rest of Canada is finally waking up to your 35+ years of racist nonsense holding the rest of the country hostage with your demands and grabbing everything for yourselves. You're about to find yourself very much isolated.
@ Anon. at 1:09 pm,
ReplyDelete"I assure you that if this site were better known among francophones you would get a hundred times more negative comments, but Mr Editor would still be safe and unharmed. If Jan Wong can come to Québec without a police escort, so can he."
What about Howard Galganov? He made his identity public when he lived in Quebec and he received many threats, including death threats. He was forced to hire bodyguards 24/7 to protect him, his family and his property, until he just got fed up and left the province. I suppose the Editor doesn't want to end up in a similar situation.
"I also fear for my family and pets, particularly since the Quebecois show disregard for animal life as seen by what goes on in this province."
ReplyDeleteVery true. Quebec has the worst animal protection laws in North America and is also the puppy mill capital of North America. On July 1 (moving day) every year, enormous numbers of cats and dogs are abandoned in the province.
"I suppose the Editor doesn't want to end up in a similar situation."
ReplyDeleteAlors pourquoi tenir publiquement les mêmes propos que galganov en cachette?Espérez-vous que cela aura pour effet un changement radical d'orientation politique de notre Nation?
Anonymous 3:17 pm
ReplyDeleteEXCELLENT!!!Merci!Je m'apprêtais justement a établir une liste semblable a la tienne mais avec des éléments un peu plus mordants qui n'auraient probablement pas passés le filtre de l'Éditeur.Merci encore!
Concerning the actual article.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very interested point of view. It's kinda like hacking your own hand off before your perceived enemy can do it to you. There are a lot of messed up perception in this province. I think your piece has some valid points of view. I would not be surprised if some union or party strategists have note thought about this themselves. But, God forbid if it actually got spoken out load.
Concerning the posts.
So, some of those posting want your name. So that they can find where you live. Pick it outside your residence. Kinda like a shoe store. Wink, wink! Annoy your family, friends, and neighbours, and finally intimidate you into shutting the fuck up. Ya, I say fuck'em. I may not agree with everything you blog about, but you have a right to say it. Or Blog it if you prefer. Anyway, I don't see why some people are being upset because you want to keep your identity secret. After all, these are the same people who endorse the snitch society of the french language police. They can eat some of their own shit now.
Re anonymous 3:17
ReplyDeleteExcellent effort! Next time try to develop it into a coherent argument.
@ AngloBuster
ReplyDeleteGlad you enjoyed my list. Of course the irony I was trying to convey was how idiotic it is to attribute certain acts to an ethnic group. If Québécois are responsible for FLQ's crimes, why can't Ontarians be responsible for Col. Williams's.
@ Monster
I surely hope your post is a troll, because your are over the top even for this site. Can you even provide one example of someone who was hurt in Quebec for anti-Quebec comments like yours... As for Galganov, every project and initiative of his was a complete and utter failure, and he left because he had zero support even from the anglo community.
I've read a little of his mad, paranoid rantings on this issue and the guy is a total wackjob. Can anyone prove that he had real threats that warranted protection? Do Robert Libman, Julius Grey and other, more respectable English-community advocates need bodyguards... nope. He supposedly moved to Ontario to escape Quebec and what does he do there... become an anti-bilingualism militant. Even at that he fails again and again. It,s a good thing we have better people on OUR side.
Anonymous 9:03 said "Glad you enjoyed my list. Of course the irony I was trying to convey was how idiotic it is to attribute certain acts to an ethnic group. If Québécois are responsible for FLQ's crimes, why can't Ontarians be responsible for Col. Williams's."
ReplyDeleteOf course, the real irony here is that separatistes aren't a distinct ethic group, but a wingnut fringe of Quebecois who give the rest a bad name. Or perhaps you count pur Lainers as an ethnic group, because they're "different" from the rest of province's inhabitants? Maybe the real idiocy is attributing to the FLQ #4 and #5 from my earlier post when they clearly appply to a far larger group.
@anglobuster,
ReplyDeleteif we take you anology about colonel williams ,we can actually turn it around and talk about Marc Lepine? What a stupid comparison. Desperation for a counterpoint? The FLQ while condemned by a majority of Quebecers had support from a strong minority maybe a (majority) of seppies. Alot of their crimes are whitewashed. In fact so called "fat English lady at Eatons'" was used as a justification for some of the FLQs acts. Even today some FLQ members have no discomfort associating somewhat to their previous acts. Unless editor wins the lottery and does not need outside employment there is no need to get rid of anonymity at the moment.
@ Anonymous 2:44
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one who put forward that, analogy, I just ran with it to it's (il)logical conclusions. And their crimes aren't being whitewashed, they're just being put in context with the more recent bombings, and the thousands of murders that have occured since then, 40 years ago. The FLQ is just as representative of separatists as Col. Williams is of the army, or Ontarians, or men, or humands, etc.
@ Diogenes
"Maybe the real idiocy is attributing to the FLQ #4 and #5 from my earlier post when they clearly appply to a far larger group."
Seek professional help. Now.
"The FLQ is just as representative of separatists as Col. Williams is of the army, or Ontarians, or men, or humans, etc."
ReplyDeleteBullshit! No one supports what Col. Williams did, but large numbers of seppies regard the members of the FLQ to be heroes. In 2009, Luc Mervil reread the FLQ manifesto at the Moulin a paroles - to great applause - like it was some kind of magnificent document, such as the American Declaration of Independence.
@ Anonymous at 9:56 AM:
ReplyDelete""@ Diogenes
"Maybe the real idiocy is attributing to the FLQ #4 and #5 from my earlier post when they clearly appply to a far larger group."
"Seek professional help. Now.""
Aren't you an arrogant fu*k. No wonder Francophones are called the arrogant race.
Diogenes' statement is true. Quebec nationalists/separatists are aggressively in favor of trampling minority language rights - more so than in any other province in Canada. They are also much more militant and more likely than Quebec Anglos or Allos to be maliciously vindictive about things they don't like to see in the media.
"Aren't you an arrogant fu*k. No wonder Francophones are called the arrogant race."
ReplyDeleteQuel idiot!Francophone n'est pas une race.Vous confondez avec les parisiens...Quel plouc!
"In 2009, Luc Mervil reread the FLQ manifesto at the Moulin a paroles - to great applause - like it was some kind of magnificent document, such as the American Declaration of Independence..."
ReplyDeleteCe document fait parti de notre histoire,rien a voir avec les amarrricans.
Take your pills dude and go back to your bed!
Speaking of Luck Mervil, read this article (Eng) http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/30/17810331.html
ReplyDeleteGuess the Haitians weren't so 'Lucky'