Comments about ‘Quebec government proposes ban on religious garb at work’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 11 2013 6:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Rather than "banning" everything,
Why not just "tolerant" everything?

New Yorker
Pleasant Grove, UT

This seems ultimately unworkable. Suppose one wears a dark suit, a tie, and white shirt to school. Are they dressing like a Mormon missionary or not. What about Native American religious symbols like clouds, eagles, animals, rain, fire, and dream catchers? Where is the line between a religious organization and a not-religious organization? Many currency motifs are religious. Ban the use of money in the schools? Actually that would be good, because government employees couldn't collect money for taxes. Where will it all end?

However will people learn to appreciate diversity if diversity has to hide its face?

Canadian Content
New Westminster, 00

What this article does not elaborate fully on the nuances of Quebec provincial politics. The Premier desperately is seeking a wedge issue to go before her electorate. She wants to highlight how the Government of Canada, or rest of Canada for that matter, cannot understand Quebec and only the Parti Quebecois is the grand protector. Additionally, this is racism for the protection of the pure laine, or pure francophone Quebecers, and not the immigrant population. However this law is does not harm the large Roman Catholic population in Quebec however by banning their religious symbolism.

Many under currents here and I hope the voters in Quebec see this for what it is. If any other province in Canada tried this there would be a hew and cry coast to coast to coast. But in the muddy world of Canadian politics this becomes more complex when it comes to Quebec separatism. The Federal Government and others will challenge this law however it, in my opinion, is the premier's opening salvo in trying to dismantle your neighbor to the North.

Semi-Strong
Louisville, KY

I oppose a ban on religious clothing. I do however understand the need that faces be uncovered in many situations. This puts the most conservative muslim women in a hard spot (which is unfortunate). No problem covering the head (which, I believe, is all the Koran requires) but the uncovered face is a security issue and, for someone like a teacher, necessary for full communication.

New Yorker
Pleasant Grove, UT

Canadian Content,

That raises a question in my mind. Where does the "divine right" of the British monarch to be the "defender of the faith" fit into all this. I'm sure that all or many of the stamps, currency and coin of the realm has images of British royalty on it. How can this not be seen as a religious statement?

I think the world has just gone crazy in the last 50 years--totally conflicted and tossing off thousands of years of cultural adaptation for an unknown mess of pottage. When we came to Utah in 1965, one seldom heard of a murder here. Now people are killing each other day to day.

Utahans always have had guns, but seldom turned them on each other [except perhaps over water distribution :-) ].

Religious symbolism (e.g., crosses for state troopers) is just a part of a big picture here. Someone should research and write about the Utah cultural change in the last 50 years. I'll bet the DN and Trib archives would be sufficient as sources.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

New Yorker, a suit is not religious garb. There are Mormons that wear suits at work. And there are Mormons that don't wear suits to church. Poor analogy.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

What better way to teach kids about different cultures, people and beliefs by non other than hiding it from them. That will only enrich their lives, right?

The atheists and government really have a hard time with accepting diversity and celebrating that we are all different.

Huge difference between preaching a sermon and baptizing your students, than discussing religion and wearing symbols or clothing that religions offer.

C'mon people. Especially atheists. What are you teaching your child if you won't let them mingle and see these things? You're teaching them to be intolerant, that it's your non-belief or the highway.

I would rather have my child surrounded by people of different faiths that express their faith. I wouldn't mind my child hearing an atheists explain why they feel the way they do. All of this can be done constructively and give a rich learning environment rather than concrete walls, no pictures, no laughter, no diversity just good old rigid ideology being preached about liberalism in our schools. Taxes are good, Higher taxes are better your too stupid trust politicians to make your life better.....

New Yorker
Pleasant Grove, UT

Chris B,

I wasn't drawing an analogy. I was pointing out absurdity. Language is not perfect enough to cast everything into rules and laws. All referents are ambiguous. Who would have thought that we would fight a culture war over the meaning of "marriage." Ordinary language philosophy was a major philosophic school between 1930 and 1970, and remains an important force in philosophy today. However, if any word should have had an ordinary meaning in world culture, it might well have been "marriage." Now we see that, no, we have no agreement on even "ordinary" language. Thus, how can we write effective rules and laws?

"When we (or Canada) become(s) a nation of laws rather than a nation of morals, we will collapse."

I'm not speaking especially to Christian, general religious, or atheist moral. All are good, but also each imperfect. Our problem is that all of today's energy is spent on leagues of attorneys and judges defining what is legal. What is moral is more important and should be given much more attention than it is. "I did it because I could," should provide no cover from societal shame--bankers, politicians, rich, poor ones.

RBB
Sandy, UT

The problem is that when the government gets involved and we lose freedom. I do not care what you want to wear as long as it does not affect me. If I own a business, I do not want a woman in a burkha or a guy with tats all over his face as my receptionist. While I think Ambercrombie was making a mistake, it is their right to decide who works for them. I do not care who you want to "marry" but if that marriage is inconsistent with my beliefs I should not have to participate. You are the right to do what you want, but you do not have the right to force me to go along.

RedShirtMIT
Cambridge, MA

To "LDS Liberal" this is liberalism. This is where your ilk will lead the US every time when they have the chance. Rather than accepting different religions, and only banning certin things for actualy safety concerns where an article of clothing could get caught in something and injure the wearer.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments