Catholic bishops oppose prayer ban
François Legault is pondering using the notwithstanding clause so he can frame a law banning public prayer.
Catholic bishops have come out against François Legault’s prayer ban idea although it’s disingenuous for Legault to call it a prayer ban when it’s explicitly a prohibition of public celebration of anything connected with Islam. (Does he mind Diwali festivities in Park Ex? Simchat Torah celebrations?)
Adding here: a Commons committee is encouraging the hiring of more Muslim professors at CEGEPs and universities. Imagine the responses.
Adding again: On Bluesky, an observation: “Like the prayers they had at the Remembrance Day ceremony in Montreal that he went to last month?”
jeather 22:15 on 2024-12-10 Permalink
Yes and yes. He hates Islam most but he hates all non Christian religions and doesn’t want to see them (or figures this might improve his sinking popularity).
Ian 23:10 on 2024-12-10 Permalink
On CBC this morning I heard a caller wonder aloud if this meant pilgrimages to St Joseph’s Oratory wouldn’t be allowed. You’re supposed to go up the 99 steps on your knees and say a Hail Mary at each one.
Uatu 06:34 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
Blah blah blah…. where’s my family dr. That I was promised last election?
Chris 11:01 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
Uatu, exactly. I think this is most likely a diversion ploy. Opposing Islam (and religion generally) is a perfectly defensible viewpoint, but this scheme is not the right way to achive it, and he can’t be that dumb to not know it, can he?
Joey 11:30 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
“Opposing Islam… is a perfectly defensible viewpoint” – no thanks. I get your point (made ad nauseam, to be frank) about religion, but this is beyond the pale for an adult conversation.
Nicholas 13:10 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
It seems the theme is Legault and many Québécois want safe spaces. They want to be able to go about their lives without seeing or thinking anything to do with religion (except their own) or language (except their own) or race (except their own). People who are different are upsetting, and rather than accept and welcome our cultural mosaic, or just shrug at something that doesn’t concern them, they need to ban all deviant behaviour so they can live in their bubble. It’s ironic that this anti-religious fervor has led us back to a place where the state is run by a morality police that punishes those who don’t confirm.
Meezly 13:51 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
@Nicholas, you seem to have perfectly described la laïcité as practised by France and Quebec.
Kate 15:44 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
Nicholas, the odd thing is that most Québécois don’t even practice Catholicism any more, except perhaps for weddings and funerals. Nobody is letting the church’s rules dictate how they live. Anyone who wants a divorce or an abortion gets one, no matter what the Pope says. And the churches are empty. But they’re still fighting a crusade against the infidel.
MarcG 15:49 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
Fear-of-the-other is a helluva drug.
Nicholas 16:27 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
Kate, I agree with you, but that doesn’t matter. The Church is in the background: no direct power, but it can stay, because we grew up with it, it is ours. We don’t have explicit rules or even norms against being Black in Quebec, but don’t you drive a fancy car or date my daughter. You can wear a kippah or a turban or a veil in public, or walk down the street speaking English or Arabic or Vietnamese, or be gay or trans or whatever, but if I have to experience it too often then we’ll take that right away too. We need to protect social cohesion, not from or because outsiders are doing anything to me, but because I feel uncomfortable around them. The deviants don’t want to change the normies; they just want to live their lives. But the normies can’t even accept that, because seeing others act differently from them suggests their way is not the only way to live.
Also, I suppose my conform/confirm typo from my last comment is apropos.
Jean Naimard 18:10 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
As idiotic as it can be, it’s a very smart move and I’m 100% behind it because it gives out loud the message that religous fundamentalism is not welcome here and we won’t tolerate it.
Ian 18:45 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
MDR, LOL, hîhîhî.
Great idea J-N, let’s make a strong public stand against religious fundamentalism by blowing up the cross on the mountain, banning pilgrimages to the Oratory, and disbanding the societé S-J-B. I’m sure that’s precisely what Legault intends. /s
Chris 21:37 on 2024-12-11 Permalink
Joey, what do you find beyond the pale? Opposing Islam? What about opposing the ideology of capitalism? of communism? of veganism? Why should Islam be exempt?
Joey 13:30 on 2024-12-12 Permalink
Because ‘opposing Islam’ is basically indistinguishable means ‘opposing Muslims’ solely because of their faith, which is IMO beyond the pale for an adult conversation, not a game of semantic gotcha. If the premier wants to end the ‘problem’ of religious fundamentalism, he can start by removing any trace of his own religion from the public sphere, not by talking shit about minorities while pre-emptively exempting the majority’s ostensible religion from criticism.