266
Quebec passes secularism law banning street prayers and prayer rooms in universities
(www.ctvnews.ca)
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026
266 points (99.6% liked)
World News
56775 readers
1947 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Secularism? As long as it’s applied across the board - including Christians and others - this seems sensible.
This isn't even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That's the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don't agree with theirs?
That's no better than forced conversations...
Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others. That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism. So yeah maybe this would be for the best.
Let's recap.
Literally, what I said was this:
And you said this:
And now you're trying to backtrack by claiming this:
No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn't just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, "ending religions," in your words).
The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally "institutions forcing their beliefs on others." So, no, you're just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.
Also,
Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn't plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things "reality and science," or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?
For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?
Who gets to determine what constitutes "science and reality," and what constitutes "religion and belief," particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?
Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined "reality"? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.
How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where "reality" can't be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?
Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I'm not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.
That is your personal belief. You are advocating to force it onto others who do not share it. How is that different from forced conversion?
That’s what this law does, it specifically targets Muslims who need to pray during the day while pretending to be for everyone.
In some ways it will protect Muslim children as well, not being exposed to crucifixes and requiring Catholic schools to accept Muslim students.
Also, it could give the children a choice to engage in religious practices. Private religious schools should not exist at all, they are a tool for indoctrination and separating children from those with different beliefs is abusive.
That said, the PQ are racists and their goal actually is to discriminate against Muslims.
It would be sensible. But what's the benefit?
Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things…
I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms.
And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons.
Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you're overlooking the good that's been done.
I don't think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion.
Religions do call for a lot of violence don't get me wrong. I'd even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion.
But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example.
Antisemitism doesn't happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current "mostly chill" status does not negate the past suffering.
And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church.
Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that.
As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others.
I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that.
But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities?
Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good.
What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables.
I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims.
I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that.
And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause
I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world.
The population?
It stops public praying as a virtue. When praying is only done in private you can’t judge people being a worse Christian etc for not participating.
So you’ll have a more secular society with more room for people to practice their religion as they see fit. Not doing things just because it’s expected of you.
Like if there’s prayer room at a school. More people will use it because they don’t want to be seen as a bad Muslim. Even if they wouldn’t normally pray at those times.
It creates pressures and expectations.
Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private.
Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe?
There is no logic to this person's stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance.
If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It's functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval.