Prayer, relgious symbols OK in public in Québec! Poland watches.

A court in Québec has ruled that beginning town council sessions with a prayer and displaying a cross at town hall does not violate the principle of official religious neutrality. 'Neutrality does not require purging public life of all religious reality, particularity that which constitutes a component of our cultural heritage,' the judge explained.

Probably the negligible percentage of those who object to any religious presence in public space is about the same in Québec as in Poland. Both Poland and the Province of Québec have many serious and pressing problems to deal with without wasting time, effort and taxpayer money on minor, peripheral issues being pushed by a handful of obsessed anti-religious agitators.

In 2011, the mayor has been fined 30 thousand . dollars for refusing a short prayer at the beginning of the meeting of the city council . He also ordered the removal from the audience crosses and statues of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

I have nothing against cross in public space- aslong as we will put other religious signs next to it. If not- no cross as well.

Agreed!

What I object to is the placing of the cross "just because". If it's asked for, fine - but it should not be there just because one person decides. The one in the Polish Sejm is the perfect example of this - it was never voted for and never agreed on.

Indeed, one could Google religions and plaster the walls with every relgious smybol listed there. That would be a cost-efficient move as wel, For the one-off price for the symbols, they wouldn't have to paint or paper the walls for years.

Or alternatively, they could vote on it and settle the matter.

If it's so costly why should I (as taxpayer) agree to pay for many religious symbols but only of one religion? As I said- all or none. And wiki is unnecessary- all religious congregation registered in Poland should have their representation (if we accept the religious signs in public). It won't be so much- cross is the symbol for al versions of Catholicism.

Do you really beleive the Sejm (with the exception of SLD, Palikot and mebbe a handful fo PO nutters) would vote to remove the cross ? Even when the ex-commies were in power nobody dared try that.

I think the Sejm would vote in favour of keeping it, yes. That's why the reluctance to vote on the matter is strange.

Wasn't there recently a situation in a regional assembly where people put up other religious symbols (from memory the Star of David and the Star & Crescent, plus one other) next to the cross, only for 'Christians' to tear those symbols down?

LINK?

Happily (although I must correct myself by saying that it was actually the Szczecin city council and not a regional assembly). Here's a video of the event:



It's actually pretty lucky that this video hasn't made it to some of the nuttier news sources in Russia, Israel or the Arab world. There are more than a few Polonophobic bigots in Russia and Israel who would just love an excuse to get self-righteously angry with Poles and given the way some Muslims call for mass murder as a response to people claiming that Islam is not exactly a religion of peace, Allah alone knows what they'd do in response to the Star & Crescent being torn off the way while the Cross was left up.

If all religions are to be represented or none at all, shouldn't the predominant faith have the largest symbol with much smaller ones next to it? Should a predomiantnyl Chrsitian nation with only a mere handful of Hindus or animists be forced to display their symbols in as prominent a format as the cross?

And aren't all those raising a rumpus over this merely inflating a marginal molehole into a major media-hyped mountain?

No it shouldn't. No religion is more important than other. What you suggest would be insulting in my opinion. After all is Judaism less important to a Jew or Islam for a Muslim than Catholicism for a Roman- Catholic?

Precisely.


Are you simply unable to make a post without insulting anybody?

By the way, got any comment on the so-called Catholics tearing down the symbols of other faiths?

In other words a sect with three members should have a large symbol the size of the Christian cross? How about the Satanists? Would you really like to view their goat's head emblem next to Poland's sacred Crucifix?

Remember Mickiewicz's famous words: Only under the Cross can Poland be Poand and a Pole be a Pole.

a) Please don't lie about Satanists.
b) Their downward-pointing pentagram is just as sacred as the cross. Although I must admit that I was unaware that Poland had her own crucifix, how does it differ from the standard one? Does it perhaps have a figure the late duckling nailed to it to represent him dying for Poland's sins?


Wasn't he a Lithuanian Jew?

Harry


How do you know so much about satanists. R U 1 2?

All religions have equal right for their symbols to be treated with respect.

Now, how about some details on Poland's own cross?

I think USA needs to put up a few more giant Jewish menorahs.
That outta show them whos boss.

So you regard satanism as a legitimate relgion? What about Scientology and Voodoo? Should their symbols also be prominently displayed in public?

It is precisely as legitimate as the RCC.


Which part of 'all or none' are you have trouble understanding? Do you perhaps find this a bit confusing?

On what basis can a religion not be 'legitimate'? If there are no scientific proofs for its claims?

Anybody can think up a 'religon' on his computer and start solicitng funds. Is that a legitmate religon or a scam?
Legitimate means a socially accepted body of believers that is officially recognised and legally registered in a given country. Since our focus is Poland, how many believers are non-Christian? Satanism in Poland is not one

of the registered denominations nor is Scientology.

What is a legitimate religion? How can you tell people what they can or cannot believe? Holy inquisition at its finest.


State should have nothing to do with registering religions, because that's not its role. State should not tell people what they are or are not allowed to believe in and legitimize one religion but reject another.


Which is wrong, because state should not be poking its nose into religion whatsoever.

Lodge your complaint with the state. Nearly all states register religious groups. I didn't make the rules.

None of the three religions mentioned are 'thought up' on a computer

BTW, being registered or not does not affect 'legitimacy'. It is about tax breaks. Even the Church of England, as respectable as it gets, don't have the requisite number of Polish citizens as member in order to register. The only reason they are able to rent premises was that during the month when the registration law was passed (after extensive lobbying by the Polish episcopate of the RCC) there was a royal visit impending and it would have been an embarrassment to the Tadeusz Mazowiecki government if they were hosting the Queen and had just banned the religion of which she is head.


The first of these is split into various denominations at least two of which do have sufficient members in Poland and could certainly register as a religion - for doctrinal reasons (to do with never accepting tax breaks for churches) they both prefer to be registered as societies instead, as is their right. The second one you mentioned is currently banned however their volunteer service has a presence here. Both are certainly legitimate religions.

And some states have state religions and task army officers to impose sectarian laws which they willingly did

A case in point is the official persecution of the Mariawicki Catholics in pre-war Poland as well as the persecution of religious groups in Franco's Spain, all whipped up by the majority religion and brutally enforced by the state.

Never forget it was Franco's Spain that repeated Poland's 1920 victory over the Bolshevik assault. Only a few km had separated the invading red hordes from the Prussian border beyond which pro-communist German workers were seething with unrerst awaiting 'liberation' by their Russian comrades.

Were it not for Franco's rebuff of the Stalinist forces that tried to set up shop there, all of Europe might have been engulfed by the red menace. You're surprised the Church backed Franco? Who should they have backed, the red scum that was murdering clergy, raping nuns, pillaging and burning down churches under portraits of Stalin and hammer and sickle emblems. Back to History 101!