[angry_octet]

But Catholic religious symbols are not excluded -- they're everywhere, but it's called 'history' and 'culture'. The lengths CSDM builders go to to leave a giant crucifix on a school building undisturbed even when demolishing the rest are truly noteworthy.

[magic-chicken]

The crucifix was removed from Quebec National Assembly a few years ago https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/crucifix-removed-nat...

[goosedragons]

They literally didn't mention anything about the National Assembly.

[magic-chicken]

The point is that the crucifix was removed from the most symbolic place it could be removed from. If thats not a strong, consistent signal that Quebec wants religions out of the public institutions, then what is?

[goosedragons]

Removing the rest of them? Changing the names of all the places named after Catholic Saints? Not having the municipality put up Christmas decorations every year? You know, actually taking action to do that?

They only took down the cross in the National Assembly after backlash and calls of hypocrisy. Originally Legault wanted it to stay up. That alone says to me how BS the whole thing is.

[rayiner]

> Changing the names of all the places named after Catholic Saints? Not having the municipality put up Christmas decorations every year?

But that stuff really is "history and culture" rather than "public endorsement of religion."

People in my home country would never tolerate foreign Christians coming in and demanding that the state stop celebrating Eid or changing place names. People are entitled to their heritage, and shouldn’t have to erase it to accommodate newcomers.

[goosedragons]

Supposedly it's Quebecers themselves who want reglious symbols out of the public sphere. Not immigrants or outsiders. Crosses and Christmas trees are reglious symbols, sure there is some "history and culture" there but there is also "history and culture" in Confederate monuments and places named after them. If Quebecers are serious about removing religious symbols in the public sphere they should take steps to actually do so. It's picking and choosing what religious symbols to have around.

[angry_octet]

To be clear (which Americans get really diverted into believing) this is not about banning Christmas or forcing people to say Happy Holidays. This is the hypocrisy of refusing to let Muslim women cover their hair if they are a public servant (and the Govt sector is large, including pre-school workers, cleaners, teachers, council office workers, librarians, road sweepers, health workers, archivists, town planners, etc) but still having profoundly religious symbols in places like schools, hospitals and other Govt buildings. Also cultural matters, e.g. an incredible refusal to acknowledge that people are fasting during Ramadan.

The use of saint names is unavoidable, a reminder of how the Church used to control everything. It would be a powerful statement of actual secularism if some schools were renamed, even some streets. But most people don't care, they just stopped going to mass and kicked the priests out of schools, job done. Secularism is now code for xenophobia.

[magic-chicken]

The process to remove religions from public institutions started 50-70 years ago. It's a process, and its going to take a long time, as there is 400 years of history to deal with. Saying that the whole process is BS because there was some hesitation, or because there are still streets named after catholic Saints is just a logical fallacy.

[goosedragons]

The fact that the person hesitating is the Premier of the government that introduced and passed the legislation doesn't send a good message.