• grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Last fall, city officials confirmed the image would be removed in the name of secularism following complaints that it was offensive.

    Oh?

    Please, Montreal City Hall, share with the class what’s offensive about that image.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Any religious representation [on govermental buildings] is offensive to secularism. A cross is just two over lapping lines but it would also be offensive in this context. Although the word offensive is a bit much, I’ll give you that, I can understand why they want it gone.

      It is a shame that secularism seems to disproportionately target Muslim women but it’s either a religious symbol or it isn’t.

      Edit: Clarified first sentence.

      • grte@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 days ago

        Any religious representation is offensive to secularism.

        No, I don’t agree. Making laws with religious justification is offensive to secularism. A drawing that depicts a person wearing a piece of clothing traditionally associated with a religion is not offensive to secularism.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          I think it goes deeper then that. Secularism means complete disconnection of church and state. Having religious symbols on state buildings goes against that. Religious symbols are a form of propaganda in the end.

          I would be okay with making an exception for the head scarf. Tbh I don’t really consider it much of a symbol but I understand their reaction to it. I wish we had similar laws where I am, instead my kids get to learn about creationism (I’m just guessing it’s still taught, I don’t actually have kids).