What bothers me about this perspective is the implicit assumption that everyone who thinks that public displays of religion should be banned is actually motivated by racism, rather than recognising that somebody can be against this for non-racist reasons.
I don’t really see how that’s related. Even if it were motivated by racism, that’d be equally authoritarian to any other motive, since authoritarianism is about ceding rights from individuals to the government and it doesn’t matter what the motivation for that is.
The context made it so that people conflates the two.
Medias and public debates pretty much always framed the issue of religion in public as a racist thing (in order to get more views) instead of only talking how the CAQ government targetted non-christian religions with their bill.
That’s my issue as well with the bill. Just look at the crucifix at the Assembly. They didn’t remove it, they just moved it outside the room. If the intent of the law was really to remove religion from the public space, it wouldn’t have been a debate about keeping the crucifix in the Assembly.
What bothers me about this perspective is the implicit assumption that everyone who thinks that public displays of religion should be banned is actually motivated by racism, rather than recognising that somebody can be against this for non-racist reasons.
It just so happens that it always boils down to policing what Muslims do. Just one big coincidence.
That’s very fair yes. But how can you tell those who are anti-religion for racist reasons from those who are for not?
There are two hazards in our discussion:
I prioritize hazard 1 as having a lower consequence than hazard 2.
In other words, I care much more about eradicating systemic racism than the hurt feelings of someone whose motives are misunderstood.
Sure, you can be against for authoritarian reasons as well. Disturbing.
Religion has been used time and time again to justify committing atrocities and still used as such today.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about the religion’s place in a society.
I don’t really see how that’s related. Even if it were motivated by racism, that’d be equally authoritarian to any other motive, since authoritarianism is about ceding rights from individuals to the government and it doesn’t matter what the motivation for that is.
Fair enough: regardless of whether racism is involved or not, there is an authoritarian bent to this law. In my opinion.
The context made it so that people conflates the two.
Medias and public debates pretty much always framed the issue of religion in public as a racist thing (in order to get more views) instead of only talking how the CAQ government targetted non-christian religions with their bill.
That is not push on a non-racism way in Quebec. Like I said they don’t want to use the law equally, they want to use it specifically against Muslim.
And so far, from my perspective (that is a confirmation biais), no one debate the idea without a racist undertone
That’s my issue as well with the bill. Just look at the crucifix at the Assembly. They didn’t remove it, they just moved it outside the room. If the intent of the law was really to remove religion from the public space, it wouldn’t have been a debate about keeping the crucifix in the Assembly.