Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Jesus (no pun intended). One single shot of a jesuit priest in a 6 minute long video of the history of a city is enough to trigger these kinds of responses.

Wow.

yeah, this is what I think too.

And I am on record in numerous SSP threads condemning the Quebec government and politicians (past and present) for what I consider to be divisive tactics (niqab ban).

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Unfounded? We come across this all the time in this forum and from the mouths of Quebec politicians. I have no problem with it, but by pretending this doesn't exist, you are proving our point.

I am on record in numerous SSP threads condemning the Quebec government and politicians (past and present) for what I consider to be divisive tactics (e.g., niqab ban, tongue troopers). I do not pretend "this doesn't exist"

Don't you confuse me for some other person. My fellow Quebec forumers will confirm that I have been harshly critical of Quebec entities in instances where I disagreed with what was being promoted.

this is not one of those cases whatsoever. It's a fucking video consisting of slides symbolizing aspects of the history of Montreal, which is inextricably tied to the French Catholic fact.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Don't you confuse me for some other person. My fellow Quebec forumers will confirm that I have been harshly critical of Quebec entities where I disagreed.

.

Yes, you're very much an equal opportunity critic!

[O-tacular]

I am mystified by the things that we squabble about on this forum. How on earth was that picture of Montreal with the images projected on the Courthouse so offensive?

[WhipperSnapper]

What's so hard to understand? Because some people are offended by religious iconography because of what it does to people. Most often the results are socially regressive. Others, saw it as a mural that looks very "end of days". They weren't offended by it. It's just weird for a mural.

Religious iconography maybe more socially accepted but, it's not much different from stature of confederate generals in southern states. It's divisive. That's why we don't mix religion with politics in Canada.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

What's so hard to understand? Because some people are offended by religious iconography because of what it does to people. Most often the results are socially regressive. Others, saw it as a mural that looks very "end of days". They weren't offended by it. It's just weird for a mural.

Is this Groundhog Day ?

It's NOT a mural. It's a PROJECTED ANIMATED VIDEO showing significant moments in Montreal's history. It just so happens that the picture was taken at the very moment when that video shows a JESUIT MISSIONARY; it could just as well have shown autochtones or Mauriche Richard or Expo 67, as it does.

[vanatox]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Is this Groundhog Day ?

Haha! I think it is!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

What's so hard to understand? Because some people are offended by religious iconography because of what it does to people. Most often the results are socially regressive. Others, saw it as a mural that looks very "end of days". They weren't offended by it. It's just weird for a mural.

Religious iconography maybe more socially accepted but, it's not much different from stature of confederate generals in southern states. It's divisive. That's why we don't mix religion with politics in Canada.

Hey you're the one who started this!

Seriously, although I think you overreacted and are still overreacting a bit, I do respect the fact that you're at least consistent in your posts on matters of religion and the public sphere.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Is this Groundhog Day ?

It's NOT a mural. It's a PROJECTED ANIMATED VIDEO showing significant moments in Montreal's history. It just so happens that the picture was taken at the very moment when that video shows a JESUIT MISSIONARY; it could just as well have shown autochtones or Mauriche Richard or Expo 67, as it does.

Oh, for Pete's sake. I'm talking about my first impression that started this whole conversation. I wasn't alone either with that impression. It doesn't matter to the conversation if was a false impression. We've pretty much moved past the specifics of that photo capture into a broader discussion. Do you get it now? You're being too literal.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Hey you're the one who started this!

Seriously, although I think you overreacted and are still overreacting a bit, I do respect the fact that you're at least consistent in your posts on matters of religion and the public sphere.

I could be wrong. I think I'm the first to comment on the odd depiction shown in the skyline photo which led to here.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Oh, for Pete's sake. I'm talking about my first impression that started this whole conversation. I wasn't alone either with that impression. It doesn't matter to the conversation if was a false impression. We've pretty much moved past the specifics of that image into a broader discussion. Do you get it now?

Is that a figure of speech using the apostle Peter as a euphemism for God?

Ok, I'll stop now..

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

unfounded drive-by comment.

How is this an unfounded drive-by?

This has been a recurring issue. Many of the same Quebec politicians trying to erase displays of religion from the public domain (by, for example, banning religious headgear) support maintaining Christian displays.

See, for example, the crucifix overlooking the legislature while they debate erasing religion (read: non-Christian religions) from the public domain: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat...bly-amid-bill-62-debate/article36700123/

Or the crucifix in a hospital: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-hospital-threat-crucifix-arrest-1.4004482

I personally do not have issues with displays of religion in the public domain (provided that (i) it is not endorsed or displayed or funded by the ostensibly secular government and (ii) it otherwise complies with generally applicable laws on obscenity, hate speech, etc.).

But Quebec's vaunted interpretation of secularism appears to be nothing more than raw tribalism. Beneath all the fancy concepts bandied about, their thinking seems to boil down to: We killed off the natives and established Christianity here as the predominant religion. Christianity must therefore continue to dominate. We will erase other religions from the public domain, while our hospitals and government offices glorify our lord and savior Jesus. We will pretend that this is motivated by lofty ideals of secularism rather than primitive tribalism.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Is that a figure of speech using the apostle Peter as a euphemism for God?

Ok, I'll stop now..

I have no fucking idea.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I have no fucking idea.

It was a joke.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

What's so hard to understand? Because some people are offended by religious iconography because of what it does to people. Most often the results are socially regressive. Others, saw it as a mural that looks very "end of days". They weren't offended by it. It's just weird for a mural.

Religious iconography maybe more socially accepted but, it's not much different from stature of confederate generals in southern states. It's divisive. That's why we don't mix religion with politics in Canada.

I'm more offended by the hypocrisy. I'm okay with allowing displays of religion (by private persons) regardless of my negative view of them, but try to treat them fairly at least?

Government offices and hospitals glorifying Jesus under the pressure of the Church while the same officials use secularism to stamp out other religions is sad.

But of course a crucifix overseeing the legislature is not an affront to secularism, a man wearing a turban is!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

How is this an unfounded drive-by?

This has been a recurring issue. Many of the same Quebec politicians trying to erase displays of religion from the public domain (by, for example, banning religious headgear) support maintaining Christian displays.

See, for example, the crucifix overlooking the legislature while they debate erasing religion (read: non-Christian religions) from the public domain: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat...bly-amid-bill-62-debate/article36700123/

Or the crucifix in a hospital: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-hospital-threat-crucifix-arrest-1.4004482

I personally do not have issues with displays of religion in the public domain (provided that (i) it is not endorsed or displayed or funded by the ostensibly secular government and (ii) it otherwise complies with generally applicable laws on obscenity, hate speech, etc.).

But Quebec's vaunted interpretation of secularism appears to be nothing more than raw tribalism. Beneath all the fancy concepts bandied about, their thinking seems to boil down to: We killed off the natives and established Christianity here as the predominant religion. Christianity must therefore continue to dominate. We will erase other religions from the public domain, while our hospitals and government offices glorify our lord and savior Jesus. We will pretend that this is motivated by lofty ideals of secularism rather than primitive tribalism.

The crucifix is another gotcha! moment that you guys just looooooooove!

The truth is that while it is still there for the moment, it's hotly debated in Quebec and the population is quite divided on the issue. These gotcha! moments are what's really fun about living in Quebec. It's living having a family fight but all of the neighbours are watching it live on CCTV!

Personally I can see both sides of the issue. It's obviously a religious symbol in an assembly in a province that claims to be secular, but it is also kind of like the cross on Mount Royal. It's part of the "décor".

I most definitely wouldn't be in favour of adding crosses anywhere where they aren't already. Though I don't think anyone would dare do this in today's Quebec anyway.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The crucifix is another gotcha! moment that you guys just looooooooove!

The truth is that while it is still there for the moment, it's hotly debated in Quebec and the population is quite divided on the issue. These gotcha! moments are what's really fun about living in Quebec. It's living having a family fight but all of the neighbours are watching it live on CCTV!

If it is hotly debated in Quebec and Quebec is divided on the topic, then how is it a "gotcha!" moment?

And it is one thing if the same people who want Sikhs to stop wearing turbans also want to remove the lord and savior Jesus overseeing the legislature of an ostensibly secular government, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Personally I can see both sides of the issue. It's obviously a religious symbol in an assembly in a province that claims to be secular, but it is also kind of like the cross on Mount Royal. It's part of the "décor".

I most definitely wouldn't be in favour of adding crosses anywhere where they aren't already. Though I don't think anyone would dare do this in today's Quebec anyway.

What about the crucifix they put back in the hospital under pressure from local Church officials?

Is that just decor, too? When's the last time the Church lobbied the government over decor and the government backed down?

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

How is this an unfounded drive-by?

This has been a recurring issue. Many of the same Quebec politicians trying to erase displays of religion from the public domain (by, for example, banning religious headgear) support maintaining Christian displays.

See, for example, the crucifix overlooking the legislature while they debate erasing religion (read: non-Christian religions) from the public domain: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat...bly-amid-bill-62-debate/article36700123/

Or the crucifix in a hospital: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-hospital-threat-crucifix-arrest-1.4004482

I personally do not have issues with displays of religion in the public domain (provided that (i) it is not endorsed or displayed or funded by the ostensibly secular government and (ii) it otherwise complies with generally applicable laws on obscenity, hate speech, etc.).

But Quebec's vaunted interpretation of secularism appears to be nothing more than raw tribalism. Beneath all the fancy concepts bandied about, their thinking seems to boil down to: We killed off the natives and established Christianity here as the predominant religion. Christianity must therefore continue to dominate. We will erase other religions from the public domain, while our hospitals and government offices glorify our lord and savior Jesus. We will pretend that this is motivated by lofty ideals of secularism rather than primitive tribalism.

Yeappp...kind of like the people who say they're not racist, just pro-white lol

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Yeappp...kind of like the people who say they're not racist, just pro-white lol

Shit! You've found us out!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

If it is hotly debated in Quebec and Quebec is divided on the topic, then how is it a "gotcha!" moment?

And it is one thing if the same people who want Sikhs to stop wearing turbans also want to remove the lord and savior Jesus overseeing the legislature of an ostensibly secular government, but that doesn't appear to be the case.



What about the crucifix they put back in the hospital under pressure from local Church officials?

Is that just decor, too? When's the last time the Church lobbied the government over decor and the government backed down?

You're a real pro at this!

BTW, prime CCTV moment coming up - I am about to go to the bathroom.

BTW the Mortimer Davis Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, which is also public and part of the Quebec health network, also gets a bit of a break in terms of religious matters for reasons of history and tradition.