Charles-Louis de Secondat et de Montesquieu was a French social commentator and a political thinker who lived during the age of enlightenment. He discussed the ideas of separation of powers which carried out in many constitutions throughout the world. He protected the word despotism in the political branch of knowledge. John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, political economist and civil servant. He made powerful contributions to social theory, political theory and political economy. Mill’s views on the concept of liberty rationalized the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control.
In the Quebec’s Charter of Values, it discusses the province’s public service employees will be banned from wearing or carrying any religious symbols - a move meant to firmly establish secularism in public life. It's also a challenge to Canada's values of tolerance and acceptance of diversity. The religious symbols not allowed are: overt crosses, a hijab, a turban, a skull cap and a burka (covering of the face).
“If the state is to be neutral, its agents are to appear neutral” – Daniel Turp. In the interview posted on YouTube, Daniel Turp, a politician in Quebec, Canada, discusses how the state of the nation must remain neutral. Not only are they asking people to remove religious symbols but they are also removing them from buildings. He also understands that there is a heated debate but says that there is a rational reason behind it. And that is to keep the entire state equal and neutral. Turp even said that the cross will not be allowed either at national assemblies, on buildings and to be worn. Therefore, the charter will be applied to all religions. When asked about Catholics and Muslims, he said that it depends on eac...
... middle of paper ...
...be look at and overcome. The three characteristics he stated for the cause of oppression towards women were correct in my opinion. I do feel that society is the greatest cause and influence on the treatment of women and the following factors, education and marriage, are affected. Today, I believe that Mill would be really impressed how women today are equally treated in terms of respect, jobs, education and the number of rights we have. As for the government, I think he would be alright with it because the government does focus on the well-being and protection of the nation. In conclusion, Charles-Louis de Secondat et de Montesquieu and John Stuart Mill both discussed the ideas of the structure and power of the government. They believed that despotism was a negative way to control a group of people even though it worked and that people can only be controlled by fear.
One of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers was John Locke, an English philosopher and physician. His work and ideas had a incomputable impact on modern day society. He was known as “Father of Liberalism” due to his opinions of freedoms and liberty. According to Locke, the people were entitled to have control over themselves as long as it adheres to the law. The Second Treatise on Civil Government by John
John Stuart Mill was a great supporter of the suffrages. He helped to found the first British Women-Suffrage Association in 1865. At this same time he entered the Parliament as a member from Westminster. Mill ...
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a British philosopher, is one of history's most respectable moral philosophers. Mill's most well-known work on the rights and freedom of an individual is his book entitled On Liberty. On Liberty discusses the struggle between liberty and authority between society and government, and how the limits of power can be practiced by society over an individual. Mill's essay consists of arguing what laws government has that ables them to be given the right to force people to act and live in certain ways. He establishes a society that can interfere with the government, demand freedom of individuals, and allow individuals free will to do what they choose, without interfering with the rights of others. This idea of free will and liberty leads to Mill’s harm principle. On Liberty is the founding document of the harm principle. The harm principle is defined in Mill’s introduction to On Liberty:
In political theory, he was equally influential. Contradicting Hobbes, Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance; all human beings were equal and free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions." The state formed by the social contract was guided by the natural law, which guaranteed those inalienable rights. He set down the policy of checks and balances later followed in the U.S. Constitution; formulated the doctrine that revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation; and argued for broad religious freedom. The Baron de Montesquieu was a multi-faceted Enlightenment writer whose most well known work was done in the realm of political theory.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.
There are many arguments for and against keeping the cross. This could be a very sensitive subject for many. The cross is a religious symbol which was placed there in the 1930s by then-premier Maurice Duplessis.It is located on the wall directly behind the Speaker's chair in what's known as the legislature's Blue Room. A lot of people say its been there for a really long time and it's a very special symbol for society in Quebec.The Canadian national post wrote an article and talked about Francois Legault and his opinion on the issue. He is the leader of the Coalition for Quebec's Future and he said the cross should stay."We have a Christian heritage in Quebec and we cannot decide tomorrow that we can change our past," Legault told reporters."I
In regards to toleration, one can see that Quebec’s relationship between politics and religion is quite messy. It questionably attempting to eliminate a form of religious tolerance by passing this bill. In this case we can see how the government favors some religious institutions over others, by recognizing some as official and tolerating others (Kessler, 224). More importantly we see the government is barely tolerating this religious group (Kessler, 224). The Quebec government is attacking them, and infringing upon their rights to religious freedom and expression in public space.
Philio Gabriel (2010) stated that John Stuart Mill was a very intelligent philosopher of history. He studied since young and ended his working life by working with the parliament. Throughout his lifetime, as a philosopher he brought and suggested the concept of liberty in the society.
In Marseille, France, religious Jews are facing a difficult dilemma - wear a skullcap which identifies their religion or hide the skullcaps to remain peaceful. These assumptions about Jews came from the recent attacks in France. Primary officials in France are choosing whether to outlaw any item that proclaims religion or to allow religious items. Allowing these items would promote discrimination due to the precedent set by terrorists. Outlawing them would defeat “the model of [France] and it is a society of secularism and freedom or religious practice”. However, if a Jew wears religious items that aren’t too prominent, onlookers won’t mind as much.
If the Charter claims that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and expressions, then why is the discussion of prohibiting public employees from wearing clothing with religious symbolism even brought up? Why are the majority – 60 percent – of Quebecers in favour of the Charter's ban on religious symbols? Perhaps it is difficult to understand the importance of such religious symbols when someone is not practicing any religion and are not required to wear anything to show their faith. However, imagine having something that you find greatly important and highly value being taken away from you. It does not have to be a cross or a hijab, maybe it is a favourite piece literature, or a piece of jewelry passed down from an important family member, whatever it may be, it holds high sentimental value. Taking away an object of high value would offend and upset anyone, no matter what that object may be. When it comes to taking away someone's right to wear whatever they wish, and on top of that halting their right to properly practice their religion is a definite infringement of the Rights and Freedoms possessed by any person living in Canada, which is just
In political discourse, one of the most important features of the French government is the laïcité, which is the French commitment to a separation of religion and state. Due to this commitment of separation, the laïcité marks religious identity as private, so by no means does religion interfere with the public side of France, and thus it is the duty of the state to preserve public areas by excluding all religious beliefs, which, then makes it neutral. More specifically, the ...
On March 24, 2010, the Canadian government had introduced Bill 94, which would limit Muslim women in wearing a face veil. In essence, government officials can ask Muslim women to take off their veils when questioning suspects. In Western society, the veil has been a symbol of oppression. It is a regression of women’s suffrage and feminism. It reinforces hegemonic masculinity and patriarchal society. As feminist activist groups, civil rights groups, and other organizations try to prohibit or limit the use of the veil, it essentially tries to destroy the Muslim
Mills thinks that society should not reject the expression of an opinion no matter who the individual is. He supports his point for freedom of though and expression by stating that none can be bold enough to say that their opinions are true and that other opinion are false. He added that even if it is believed that a person’s opinion is wrong it should never be suppressed but should be allowed it to be fully expressed. Mills believes that when a person’s thoughts or opinions are suppressed, then it will be believed that that individual’s opinion is not true but false.
I don’t agree with the idea of the U.S. following France’s example of banning any personal display of one’s religious identity. I believe that everyone is entitled to their own religion and believes. Banning religious displays goes against multiculturalism. The U.S. is known for being a multicultural country and all religious displays should be accepted and respected. Following France’s example would cause a lot of chaos and disrespect many people. Banning people’s religious displays would impact the society and create more unnecessary problems that the U.S. does not need.
In Considerations on Representative Government, Mill denounces the idea that a despotic monarchy headed by a good despot is the best form of government. Mill goes on to share the reason behind this idea. The reason lies in the supposition that a distinguished individual with absolute power will ensure that all the duties of government is performed intelligently and virtuously. Mill does not disagree with this belief but he finds the need to address it. He states that an “all-seeing” monarch rather than a “good monarch” is needed. The despot would need to be informed correctly and in detail at all time, and be able to oversee every division of administration with effective attention and care in the twenty-four hours per day he has. If not, the