Canada

people who get tattoos don't go around trying to convince others to get the same tattoos and that getting tattoos is the only path to heaven in the afterlife.

I think that’s a very Christian-centric criticism of religion though. I grew up in a Muslim majority country, and never in my life has anyone tried spreading their belief in Islam to me. The Buddhists, arguable. Those who follow the actual religion never try to convince you to join, and only those in weird cults masquerading as Buddhism do.

In any case, I find this rebuttal rather insufficient and ineffective. If you call religion a choice (which it should be, but suffice to say it’s not the case everywhere in the world, but let’s suppose they do because that’s the assumption given proposed here), ie it is their choice to follow or not follow that religion, then you can’t criticize them for choosing to follow it, and much less so when they “choose” to follow the doctrines of the religion and wear those religious symbols.

And I do not agree that religion is wholly removed from culture, or the other way around. Rejecting the fact that religion can be part of the culture of some group is effectively rejecting history, in the sense that it’s rejecting all that’s come before them and culminated into who they are today. Sure, it was imposed on probably a huge portion of them, and many of which were effectively coerced into following the religion and following its doctrines or face expulsion (as is the way things used to work back then, even if we don’t agree with it with modern sensibilities). And let’s be fair, there are many who are still very much living in such tribal sensibilities, not necessarily by choice, but for survival. Not everyone has the privilege to just up and move away to some place else that fits their perception of the world, if they can even picture what that place would look like and function. So what are we gonna do here? Should we then tell em they should be free from religion? How’s that different from missionaries back then who spread religion then, except this time it’s for something else that we think is “better”? Religion was pretty new and thought to be right back then too.

That is to say, like it or not, that is who they are now.

We can talk about approaches to make them be more aware of the realities of religion, but I don’t think we’ll need to do that. The Internet has long penetrated many societies across the globe, and histories are shared when people interact. The idea of an irreligious world is known to them, or will be known to them, but whether they will accept it is not within our control. Worse, there are groups who are interested in keeping people religious, for the very reasons you are anti-religious. I digress.

My point of this whole conversation is pretty much centred around one thing: I think the heavy-handed approach to secularism exercised in Quebec is counterproductive, and some recent actions have seemed more form than substance. Furthermore, because of how heavy-handed and arguably insensitive approach it is (recent events that is), it has effectively, even if unintended, acted discriminatorily against people of certain religious groups, especially those whose religions require them to appear a certain way. In other words, it has indirectly benefited those who are irreligious or do not practice religions that require religious symbolism.

And so I quote your following reply:

The state is supposed to be neutral to religion. So even if the state is secular, they can't discriminate against people of any religion. Everyone is equal.

and

All I can say is that anyone who wants to live in Québec has to adhere to its core values. And that includes secularism.

I hope you see a conundrum here: in an effort to be secular, Quebec’s policies have in fact, violated one of the very tenants of secularism. As I’ve mentioned in my previous comment, “Don’t like our rules? Don’t live here!” is not a universally neutral statement, not when your laws is effectively a form of institutional discrimination, which you seem to have not addressed.

From the later replies, I’m feeling like perhaps you might’ve mistaken me to be somewhat against secularism, or perhaps that I do not understand it. I think I’ve made it clear however: Quebec’s approach to secularism, as posited by its recent policies, is a strict form of secularism. I have nothing against that form of society itself, but I find that it’s rather incompatible with the current reality, which is that Quebec has people of different backgrounds and cultures. The Québecois is free to enact whatever forms of society they wish, but if it has discriminated against certain groups of people, I don’t see why we shouldn’t call it out and hope we can find something more satisfactory.

And just so I’m super clear as well: I am not in any way against secularism. In fact, I hope more states become secular. I hope my stance on religions is clear at this point for that to be a base reason, but my true conviction is that secular states are fairer. Simple as that. As for the approach, you can’t change minds by going at it the hard and insensitive way in this day and age. The US should be your prime example: just look at the pointless wars they’ve started since WW2.