"Why remove an old, established tradition?" Because it conflicts with modern, politically correct sensibilities. And the removal of the Jewish and Christian symbols from the Town Hall just happens to coincide with the Sharia prohibition on dhimmis making public display of their faith. What a coincidence.
Dhimmitude in Montreal: "Nativity scene removed from Montreal-area town hall," by Christine Bouthillier for QMI Agency, December 5 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
MONTREAL - A posh Montreal suburb has decided to remove a nativity scene and menorah from town hall rather than acquiesce to demands from a Muslim group to erect Islamic religious symbols.The decision by the Town of Mount Royal upsets a Christian resident who says the town is abandoning an established tradition under pressure from a tiny religious minority.
Town councillors of several different religions unanimously decided to remove the Christian and Jewish items.
They had been displayed in front of the municipal building for the past 15 years.
"We asked ourselves if we were willing to display (symbols of) the five major religions," said Mayor Philippe Roy.
"This is not the role of the city, which is a secular public institution."
The decision comes amid a larger debate about the place of religion in public institutions.
Quebec's highest court has agreed to hear an appeal of a ruling that barred councillors in Saguenay, Que., from praying before their meetings.
Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay has been spearheading a legal, financial and public-relations crusade to support his right to lead the short prayer.
The battle has pitted Tremblay against the province's human rights tribunal as well as the Quebec Secular Movement.
Carla Mariano, a Christian resident of Mount Royal, tells QMI Agency that her town's decision to remove the manger is an affront to Canada's Judeo-Christian heritage.
"Why remove an old, established tradition?" she asked. "Does the council have the right to unilaterally remove it? Shouldn't it be up to citizens?"
Look out for more of this Islamic nonsense all around the world in the run up to Christmas.
"This is not the role of the city, which is a secular public institution."
What was the Nativity scene doing in the Town Hall in the first place?
Next thing you know the hindus will be demanding a cow in the Hall.
This is a victory for secularism.
The Islamic Jihad against Christmas is gathering momentum worldwide. Muslim infiltrators and subversives throughout the West are trying to downgrade and secularise Christmas, removing all its Christian associations to turn it into a politically correct 'Winterval'.
The motivations for this relentless campaign against Christmas are three-fold:
(1) Supremacism: to remove a Christian festival from its officially recognised place in the calendar.
(2) Protection of Muslim children from Christian influence.
(3) The Scrooge syndrome: resentment of kuffars having a good time.
...more on the Muslims' campaign against Christmas at http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2011/03/islams-jihad-against-christmas.html
And has anyone noticed whenever corporate or government institutions post ads for Christmas, they always say "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" trying thier best to avoid the traditional "Merry Christmas"?
To argue this in America is much more easier because our founders were for religious tolerance not the elimination of religious expression which would be the opposite. Many American like fools do not know their history nor do they care to take the time. If they did check out the history of their country they would realize that Roger Williams left the Massachusetts Bay Colonies so the all religious expression could be exemplified by the exhibition of their faiths not the elimination of that expression. Freedom to exhibit Christmas trees, or holy images is what creates religious tolerance not the elimination of those freedoms. Religious expression is just the same as speech. One does not have to watch themselves from saying Jesus, Christ, Abraham, the apostles, bible or any form it comes in. Religion is an intricate part of morality, culture, and government and we all have the right to express it anywhere because in fact the town hall is not owned by the government it is owned by the republic ( the people ) and the republic ought to express their religious beliefs anywhere in public and all faiths ought to have that representation except those that are created by whim or fancy meaning some jokers that are not part of any mainstream historical religions but are just looking to mark the true religions.
This explains why it had to be removed.
"Unfortunately Canadians are at the mercy of powerful Human Rights Commissions where “the truth is no defense” and minorities get to prosecute free of charge while the accused must hire & pay for their own lawyers. Had this been brought to the HRC and knowing muslims it most assuredly would , the accused would have lost, guaranteed.
These muslims have no rights to CHRISTmas but cannot stand other religious symbols taking precedence over theirs, thus the complaint. I’m sorry the Canadian Government ever let any of them into Canada and fervently hope they stop this debacle immediately. Canadians please write to your MPs."
""This is not the role of the city, which is a secular public institution."
What was the Nativity scene doing in the Town Hall in the first place?
Next thing you know the hindus will be demanding a cow in the Hall.
'This is a victory for secularism.'
_________________________________
Yes, rT, but does secularism have a say over religionists?
No, of course not, for the very same reason that religionists have no say over Atheists, Agnostics, Wicca, Voodoo, Hindu - or "whatever", as my son says. We must have lines drawn between our governed society and our "religious" beliefs, or absence of such.
So, in that sense, it is not a "victory" for Secularism, but rather a re-afffirmation of it, as well as the mutual sanctioning of co-existence, "religiously".
The trouble with the taking down of the Nativity scene is that it makes no sense. It smacks of circular reasoning:
a.) We had the religious symbols there for 15 years. It may be a violation of the Constitution.
b.) Someone doesn't like those symbols because they suggest a Belief System.
c.) People who put up the scene decide to take it down - why? Because, according to the article, they, at least, seemed to be hesitant about having to put ALL religious symbols up. Why?
d.) Because someone complained. Fine. Let them put their scene up, too. If a Christian feels threatened by a "Moslem Anti-Nativity Scene" down by City Hall, well, we're in more trouble than we realize.
_____________________________________
My point is that Secularism is fine and dandy, but Religionists (absent of funding) ought to be able to display symbols of their religion, just as Atheists ought to be able to...oh, wait. They already are!
"A posh Montreal suburb has decided to remove a nativity scene and menorah from town hall rather than acquiesce to demands from a Muslim group to erect Islamic religious symbols."
Can you imagine what symbols muslimes would erect.
1. Round-the-clock child porn.
2. Robotic manequins dipicting amputations/beheadings.
3. Maybe a giant stone vagina.
It's hard to come up with things without being disgusting.
Weasel Zippers has a picture of Mount Royal's lovely Nativity Scene here:
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/07/canada-affluent-montreal-suburb-removes-nativity-scene-after-muslims-complain/
I'm still looking for a picture of the Menora.
It's always important to know what we are losing to Islam...
And this is why we have what they call "Islamophobia", (I call it Islamonausea)
One obvious response to this is for every Montreal church to have a beautifully lit Nativity scene on display right out front. (Those who are of austere traditions - e.g. dyed-in-the-wool Presbyterian - that don't like having statues or pictures of Jesus and Mary, can always put up a signboard with verses from the Gospel narratives of the Birth). And for individual Montreal Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, to do similarly, on a smaller scale, in their home or in the front window of their business. And hang a colourful Christmas wreath on your front door.
Light up the city and the suburbs!
As for the Hanukkah menorah, let not only Jews but those non-Jews who are concerned about rising antisemitism proudly display the Hanukkah lamps in the windows of their homes and businesses throughout the appropriate period.
David, Outstanding !
David what exactly do you mean by secular public institution? Who says a town hall has to be secular? Show me it in the Constitution. Where does your assumption come from? Public yes I can understand that but public does not necessarily follow secular. How do you think all these religious expressions historically found their way onto town halls throughout the country in the first place? The last twenty years or so somehow religion just has to disappear because people like you stand for what? You think you are defending all by renouncing expression of faith and free speech when in fact you are trying to make government its own god devoid of love, compassion, celebration, expression and so many other good things of life. People like yourself will not be happy until your government strangles any expression of moral and ethical fortitude. I have a few questions for you David on what does your Supreme court base its final analysis on in any question of law? Which ethical ruler is used? Do you put your trust in secularism? What makes your idea of secularism so right in that it can replace religious tolerance and free expression?
David I am sorry my comment above was not meant for you it is a response to rationallyTruthfull and his statement on town halls being secular public institutions.
Apparently some people just don't get it, that there's no such thing as "collective" rights. How come that certain groups of people are entitled to demand this "right to publicly display symbols of their religious beliefs", but a single individual for some unknown reason is denied the same "right" ?
I worship God and Elvis, His last messenger ! All my moral values come from God through Elvis. Deep in my soul I always feel eternal and all-encompassing spiritual awesomness of The King Of Rock'n'roll. I have a profound and unshakeable faith that Elvis will return.
So, why now am I not entitled to have some cool celebratory Elvis-related scene on display ? Do I have to bring with me more people who recognize the holiness of The King ? How many ? Really, all I want is respect for my personal, sincere and deeply held religious belief !
Why I can't enjoy religious freedom ? Why some faith-based collectives are allowed to infringe individual rights of separate law-abiding citizens with diverse religious beliefs ? What is it exactly, that Judeo-Christianity has against Elvis, individual rights and freedom of conscience ?Mob rule ?
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
This. While I'm not bothered by religious symbols or greetings like "merry christmas" as opposed to "happy holidays", unless Islamic symbols start going up in the place of removed religious symbols, I'm not going to stress about it. While we all agree to the dangers of Islam, not all of us prescribe to the belief that christianity or some other religion is the 'way'.
"My point is that Secularism is fine and dandy, but Religionists (absent of funding) ought to be able to display symbols of their religion, just as Atheists ought to be able to...oh, wait. They already are!"
Totally agree with that. Of course religionists should strut their stuff.
But in government buildings? I was assuming that the Town Hall was one, and by extension, had to be secular. Although this may not be the case, as Joseph is kind to point out.
And Joseph, no one puts their "trust" in secularism. People seem to think that secularism means atheism, which isn't true. It's just that the state doesn't go about parading a religion and prefers to do its job in an unbiased manner.
And anyway, atheism doesn't mean an absence of ethics, it's just rational disbelief in the figment of imagination called god. The same way, religion does not equate to ethics, if halal and kosher slaughter are some of its standards.
gravenimage,
I suspect the picture at WZ is a generic nativity scene. The one in Mount Royal was a large, outdoor display which did indeed include a Jewish menorah.
"A synagogue and a church have agreed to place the nativity objects and menorah on their respective properties. Councillors have agreed to take part in religious ceremonies at both places of worship."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/12/05/pf-19070881.html
Personally, I would rather see the nativity scene removed, "rather than acquiesce to demands from a Muslim group to erect Islamic religious symbols." Adding islamic symbols to a Christian/Jewish display would be sacrilege!
I believe for every drop of rain that falls. . .a flower grows.
Precious Lord. . .take my hand. .and lead me on. . .
.''.figment of the imagination.''
Don't think so somehow R.T
check your fig-leaf friend.
Thanks, Domenick. The language in my post was fairly mangled, but - thx.
I agree with you, rationallyTruthful, and I think it was only a matter of time before this dilemma presented itself. We're going to see increasing numbers of Muslims demanding representation of Islam at these institutions, and their complaint will be legitimate.
It's going to be much tougher to stop Islamization - and maintain secular governance with legitimacy - if we support Christian symbols at government establishments, but refuse Islamic ones. An absence of all religious symbols is the only accurate way to represent the impartiality of secular government.
And while it seems equitable to simply go the other way and allow all religions symbolic representation, that won't solve this particular problem. Religious symbols at government facilities compromise our claim to true secularism, which leaves our principle of separation of church and state open to criticism and exploitation from those who seek to implement their religious tenets in our laws.
It's a regrettable state of affairs; even though I'm agnostic, I appreciate the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western culture. I don't mind a Christmastime nativity scene in a city park, or saying "one nation, under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance. I'd hate to see things like that go, actually, but our national identity and values don't rely on them, and if there was ever a time to make separation of church and state untouchable, it's now.
So what they did in Montreal doesn't strike me as dhimmi-like. It seems more akin to blowing up an arsenal that was likely to fall into enemy hands.
Yea I get where you're coming from. Nativity scenes aren't particularly leery and intimidating. But nor are Islamic stuff, if you're in a (moderate) islamic country.
I'd be willing to bet that the only things that actually offend you are Islamic symbols.
As an agnostic I imagine you're the sort of person who isn't sure whether or not to get religiously offended, and can tolerate any religious symbol which you think is innocuous.
What this really is, is some sort of xenophobia. If some Hindus were to turn up and demand some Hindu imagery, I'm willing to bet the local evangelicals like London Jim would be shell-shocked, and the same scene would ensue, although I doubt you would personally have an issue with some Hindu imagery.
Like you said, the solution is "if there was ever a time to make separation of church and state untouchable, it's now."
Not in the sligoist bit shocked R.T fartee.
No offence, of course.
But a certain section will certainly take some.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-07-13/us/27973362_1_rajan-zed-false-prayer-rudraksh-mala-round
ImNoDhimmi wrote:
gravenimage,
I suspect the picture at WZ is a generic nativity scene. The one in Mount Royal was a large, outdoor display which did indeed include a Jewish menorah.
..................................
Now that I take a closer look, I believe you are correct, ImNoDhimmi.
Thanks for the "heads up"—I usually like to post pictures so that we ca see what it is we are losing to Islam. But the WZ image probably *is* a generic nativity scene. Sloppy research on my part (hopefully this is rare).
More:
Personally, I would rather see the nativity scene removed, "rather than acquiesce to demands from a Muslim group to erect Islamic religious symbols." Adding islamic symbols to a Christian/Jewish display would be sacrilege!
..................................
Well, if those are the *only* choices, then I agree.
Here's a thoroughly grotesque example of adding Islamic symbols to a Christian/Jewish display:
http://barenakedislam.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/347_minaretst01.jpg?w=590&h=391
Here's the baby Jesus surrounded by looming Minarets that look like missiles. This is from a church in Switzerland at Christmastime. Very disturbing.
Personally, I believe the Mount Royal authorities should have told these Muslim supremacists to take a long walk on a short pier.
Before I reply at length, I must ask you to clarify something. Are you suggesting I'm xenophobic?
The more we appease the muslims and take every semblance of christianity out of the public arena, the more Almighty God will take His hand off of nations and leave us to our own devices!
More disasters, extreme weather events etc. etc. will happen!
We are opening ourselves up to the forces of evil and darkness even more in these end times!
We have to stand for God`s truths in this dark world!
The more we appease the muslims and take every semblance of christianity out of the public arena, the more Almighty God will take His hand off of nations and leave us to our own devices!
More disasters, extreme weather events etc. etc. will happen!
We are opening ourselves up to the forces of evil and darkness even more in these end times!
We have to stand for God`s truths in this dark world!
The more we appease the muslims and take every semblance of christianity out of the public arena, the more Almighty God will take His hand off of nations and leave us to our own devices!
More disasters, extreme weather events etc. etc. will happen!
We are opening ourselves up to the forces of evil and darkness even more in these end times!
We have to stand for God`s truths in this dark world!
The more we appease the muslims and take every semblance of christianity out of the public arena, the more Almighty God will take His hand off of nations and leave us to our own devices!
More disasters, extreme weather events etc. etc. will happen!
We are opening ourselves up to the forces of evil and darkness even more in these end times!
We have to stand for God`s truths in this dark world!
Sorry for the repeats, it showed error messages so I posted more than once!
Every Jewish citizen of Montreal should display as large a Mennorrah as is feasible on his property or in a window facing the public thoroughfare. Every Christian should have the Nativity with Creche on his property. If the Muslims find it distasteful and are offended
it should be pointed out that there is no Creche or Mennorrah to disturb their delicate sensitivity in the Town Square and they are perfectly free to go there and sulk. Bring
on the wine and the eggnog Christians and Jews the party will start as soon as tyhe Buddists and Hindus can join us.
I will write, but you Americans and various assorted freedom fighters can too. I write to all sorts of leaders. Global village and all that, you know.
Anyone in the Montreal area interested in a nativity scene? It's going cheap. Makes just as good a lawn ornament as a town hall adornment.
I love that idea. I would have a sign board on my lawn with that kid from Charlie brown Christmas narrating the story of christs birth.
"..... And that's what Christmas is all about Charlie Brown."
You wrote:
"It's just that the state doesn't go about parading a religion and prefers to do its job in an unbiased manner."
________________________________________________________
Oh, but they DO! The simple effort to deny any (as is the case in Montreal), in the effort to "protect" all, is, in itself, a biased argument. It is biased because, curiously, ALL religions and their symbols have become off-limits. The notion is absurd on its face.
______________
The answer is free-expression, within the boundaries of common law.
The Law need not and should not protect those who don't need protection. In fact, I would argue that our Constitution, at least in the US, does not and should not provide for the Law to adjudicate expressions of religious belief systems.
Religious expression and absence of such is protected speech, as far as I understand it.
Any attempt by "the State" to "limit it" is misguided, if not illegal.
I find that the the mayor made a huge mistake by removing the nativity scene and the menorah. That is why I started a petition hoping to convince the city hall members to respect the traditions of the community that they are supposed to represent.
Thank you for your support.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nativity-scene-and-menorah-in-tmr/
Why are Muslims whining about a another nativity scene? It's not the majority's fault that Ramadan is never on the same date each year and can't always compete with Christmas, Easter, or the Jewish holidays. Muslims need to invent a new major Islamic religious holiday that falls on or about December 25th each year. Since no one knows the exact date of the birth of Jesus (most likely late October or in March)the Church made the date of Christ's birth December 25th to compete with the pagan winter solstice in Northern Europe. If Muslims had any immigination they would dream up a fantasy from the Koran they could claim happened around December 25th and demand their newly invented Islamic holiday get equal attention to Christmas and Hanukkah. I wouldn't be surprised there are some mullah's or imam's already at work on this idea. God forgive me if I have given them any ideas.
What else could we expect from a bunch of Muslims. I mean who needs them for neighbors?
No, I wasn't insinuating that. I would assume that you personally wouldn't have a problem with any religiosity, be it Judeo-Christian or not, except Islam. That's not xenophobia. Any rational person can see what Islam is and does. But several others view it differently.
I was pointing out that people like Carole63, feel quite strongly about their religious beliefs. "The more we appease the muslims and take every semblance of christianity out of the public arena"?
"We are opening ourselves up to the forces of evil and darkness even more in these end times!"
I'm pretty sure Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and polytheism being the heretic pagan worship they're made out to be, are the forces of "evil and darkness" as well, if you care to ask the local pastor. They still don't "see the light". For these people, Islam is the enemy that their religion should save the world from. I just assumed that the same scene would ensue had it been a religion other than Judaism or Christianity. That's what I called xenophobia.
Again, David Dowse, what you're trying to say, is that removing religion from government somehow amounts to a violation of free speech. You're right there. I'm curious though, are you saying that the Islamists should've put up their scenes as well?
.?. .Their scenes. .? .put 'em up. .bloody conquest sits low on the wall though. .an informative visual narrative that might help put things in perspective for the unlearned.
Oh c'mon. You don't really want that. That is dhimmi behaviour.
And secularism in the government isn't a violation of freedom of speech. Restrictions can be placed on government property, you're still free to express yourself elsewhere. Protection of free speech doesn't mean that every single institution in the country allows itself to be used as a platform for every idea. I doubt a pro-abortion campaigner could walk into a Church and claim free speech.
My understanding of free speech was that you are free to say whatever you like, but not everyone is obliged to give you a platform.
au contraire, it's not dhimmi behaviour. .it would help unknowing folks, in the words of the eminent Fitzgerald, 'compare & contrast' ,would it not?
"I'm curious though, are you saying that the Islamists should've put up their scenes as well?"
Yes, that is exactly what I was suggesting, since it would eliminate any semblance of bias on the part of those who decided (misguidedly) to take all scenes down, in an effort to offend nobody.
You mean they should put posters up that say "Jesus is a Muslim prophet, is not the son of God and will come back to fight the Jews"?
I'm sure that would be considerably offensive.
"You mean they should put posters up that say "Jesus is a Muslim prophet, is not the son of God and will come back to fight the Jews"?
I'm sure that would be considerably offensive."
_____________________________________________
They can put up whatever they want. We have the right to be offended, as we look at their "bizarre" Christmas scenes, whatever they might be. But that's not the point. Again, the whole think smacks of circular reasoning.
Rather than insisting on no one, invite EVERYONE to put their little symbols and messages up. Who cares?
Christians know what they believe, and aren't threatened by their own, or anyone else's beliefs as depicted in a nativity scene or otherwise.
Free-speech is the answer, not selective free-speech, which is what the Muslims want.