Topic awaiting preservation: Banning of Muslim headscarves in French schools? (Page 2 of 3)

Anyone think that would fly in the U.S.?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

Not at this time. We actually still believe in freedom of religion in this country. I don't see us abandoning that concept just yet.

. . : slicePuzzle

While not quite the same thing, we have had cases here in the US (somewhat) recently where girls have been barred from wearing headscarves because of a general ban on headwear designed to stem the tide of gang related activities in schools.

Bugimus:

quote:

---

We actually still believe in freedom of religion in this country.

---

When will you grow a brain and understand that the new law forces nobody to believe or not in a certain religion but simply states that the public schools are not the place to express your religious beliefs.

That's the role of the laws to put some subtle limits to the rights. I think, you can understand that. At least you "understood" that the Patriot Acts are a good thing for the US security. Let us take some laws to put the children at equality, protect them from proselytism, re-affirm the separtion between the religions and the Republic, and fight the communautarism.

Just an example ( stupid and crystal clear ) about the utility of the laws in general : you can drink 2 bottles of vodkas if you want, but the the law states that you must be adult to do so and that you can't drive when you have more than 0.xx grams of alcohol per liter of blood. You could say that it is your right to drink and drive, but the government considered that limiting your freedom a little here was more profitable than letting the things as they were.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-10-2004).]

quote:

---

Inane reply by poi to Bugimus:

When will you grow a brain and understand that the new law forces nobody to believe or not in a certain religion but simply states that the public schools are not the place to express your religious beliefs.

That's the role of the laws to put some subtle limits to the rights. I think, you can understand that. At least you "understood" that the Patriot Acts are a good thing for the US security.

---

The Patriot Acts enhance national security yet diminish civil liberties. I prefer civil liberties.

Unlike many ignorant Americans, I am not willing to trade my Rights for "Security."

The role of Law is to subjugate the populace.

Stroll over to the Bill of Rights. Find the Amendments that are no longer effective. It's like a Where's Waldo? puzzle, but with lots of real Waldos.



[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-10-2004).]

the tone of my previous message was certainly rude, but I can't bother to see someone refusing to admit that this law do not forbid the people to practice their religion at all. The law will simply point that the religion do not have its place in public schools, that's all. And in that it's just an update of the laws of 1905 to take the current situation into account.

[edit]

In the phrases "That's the role of the laws to put some subtle limits to the rights. I think, you can understand that. At least you "understood" that the Patriot Acts are a good thing for the US security.", I should have put some quotes around the words "subtle" and "good" to reflect more accurately my feelings.

[/edit]



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-10-2004).]

My big problem here, Poi, is in the definitions.
You say, "...this law do not forbid the people to practice their religion at all."

I believe that you believe that.
The flip side of this is that some muslim women see covering their head as an integral part of practicing their religion. They can not be muslim and leave their head uncovered.

The covering of one's head is more than a symbol of faith, it is a commandment from god.

To compare it to a Christian wearing a cross is unaware and unfair; Christianity does not REQUIRE the wearing of a cross as an integral part of the faith. A more useful (though still limited) analogy might be to REQUIRE Roman Catholics to eat red meat on Fridays during Lent as a sign that 'religion does not belong in public schools.'

Do not take this as a judgement of France or its people. You have the right to rule yourselves however you wish. If the French wish to outlaw Muslim women, it is unfortunate, but you are perfectly welcome to do so. I'm simply pointing out the falacy of the argument that this does not prohibit the practice of a particular religion.

Exactly, Mobrul.


The scarf is not a symbol of their religion...it is something which must be worn to stay true to their faith.

My opinion, or your opinion, of how silly that part of their religion might be, is totally irellevant.

If people have a right to practice their religion, then this law now violates that right. Plain and simple.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-11-2004).]

I don't know if it's silly, DL, as there is most likely a genetic reason for the establishment of such a "clause" in their "God's" contract. What are the societal effects of wearing headscarves? What are the biological effects of the practice? Islam has proven to be a resilient and secure meme and therefore able to ward off (and recover from) attempts by Christian missionaries to convert Muslims in order to reduce the hostility of the Muslim ummah towards Western civilizations. Due to Islam's ability to maintain its singularity throughout many centuries of religious warfare, its contract must be working to increase and defend the longevity of Islam.

I think the important thing is that 70% of the French thought it was right and 50% of the French Moslem population agreed. If you ar eina country and you don't like the way things are being done you can either get organised and get things changed or move. Me I'm going to vote against Tony Blair next election.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

mobrul: I understand that some people see the fact to cover their head as a commandment from god. But the law of the Republic is the same for everybody. I mean, it didn't disturbed my Jewish friends ( even those practizing their religion ) to not wear their kippa when they went to school, be them students or teachers.

On the other hand, all the Muslims to not consider the headscarf has an obligation. Like there's different interpretations of the Bible, the Coran is not understood the same way by all the Muslims.

DL-44:

quote:

---

If people have a right to practice their religion, then this law now violates that right. Plain and simple.

---

Please read my posts again, you'll see that in a sense all the laws violates some rights but in reality they simply put some limits for everyone's good.

Whatever, if the girls want to keep their headscarf they can go to private or any religious schools. Alas AFAIK there's only one Coranic school in France, but I hope the new law will put a light on that problem and we'll see more Coranic schools soon. The Muslim cult is the 2nd religion in France, but most of its believer are here since less than 60years, which explain their relative lack of representation contrary to the Jewish or Christians who "deal" with the Republic since several centurys.

Emperor: Well said. That "affair" revealed, as if we didn't already knew that, the cultural gap between ou countries.

Add to that that the "biggest" ( counting less than 10.000 ppl, while the Muslim believers are estimated to ~5.000.000 ppl ) public demonstration against the project of law have been organised by Mohammed Latreche, head of the Strasbourg- based Parti Musulman de France (PMF), who is not representative of the Muslim population but worst that man is clearly anti-Semitic and extrimist.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-12-2004).]

Is that how you spell Koran in French?

metahuman: Yep sorry. There's probably some other engRish terms in my post(s).

I always thought that it was spelt Qu'ran

Koran, Quran, al-Qur'an, Book (Princeton/WordNet)

quote:

---

Please read my posts again, you'll see that in a sense all the laws violates some rights but in reality they simply put some limits for everyone's good.

---

Yup.

But you also said -

quote:

---

. . .that this law do not forbid the people to practice their religion at all

---

Which is incorrect. If wearing head scarves is part of their religion, then this law does in fact forbid some people from practicing their religion.

You seem to be trying to justify this law doing what you're also trying to say it doesn't do. Which makes no sense.

Either the law does not interfere with people practicing their religion or it does. It can't work both ways.

Of course, as has been said - if the people support it, then so be it. But let's be clear on what the law actually does, and not espouse this vague and pretentious outlook on the issue.

poi, I was surprised that you became defensive about my comment above. But I think DL-44 and mobrul have explained what I meant in very precise terms. I do not favor restricting the practice of religion in our society. But I do recognize that there will be times when that will probably be necessary. I don't think this is one of them.

What worries me is that this decision is an attempt to *prevent* religious expression from individuals within a secular context. I can understand that the public schools should not teach or conduct religious activities, but prohibiting an individual from expressing their religious affiliations crosses a line.

I had this part of the US Constitution in mind when I said that we still hold the concept of religous freedom in high regard here:

quote:

---

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

I find this discussion very interesting also because I see a larger process occurring. For centuries Europe was a bastion of Christianity. Church and State were interwoven. But now Europe is in the process of abandoning that heritage and replacing it with Secularism. I see this particular law in France as an example of the types of things we are going to see in the next several decades. I am very interested to see how this turns out because we don't have an example of a society that has embraced secularism as its main world view in history.

Another extremely interesting possibility that we should consider is that the native populations are declining in Europe. So much so that to maintain that status quo, several countries are having to import laborers. So the muslim population is on the rise as is seen in France. It is entirely possible that we may see a clash between the secularists and a much more religious muslim population in Europe itself. Again, this case has elements of that. I don't think anyone really has a clue as to how this will turn out but all the pieces are there for some interesting possibilities.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Another extremely interesting possibility that we should consider is that the native populations are declining in Europe. So much so that to maintain that status quo, several countries are having to import laborers. So the muslim population is on the rise as is seen in France.

---

I'm not sure they are on the rise - France has always had a high proportion of North Africans thanka to its Imperial past (same thing for the Brits). Germany has also used gastarbiter (sp?) for quite a while now.

Long term projections show that we will have an increasingly aging population and not enough young people to help support them - it has been suggested that most of these people will come from the central/eastern European countires that have recently been brought into the EU.

I think it is the case for most develope countries -birth rates go down leading to an increasingly aged population and relatively high wages creates a kind of 'potential' which sucks people in. I sometimes hear people say that America's first language will soon be Spanish as the population goes from 300 million (a few years back) to 600 million and most of those people will come from central or south America. Slightly less of a culture clash but a sure sign that a countries population is never fixed and changes over time (just look at Britain: Celts -> Romans -> Anglo Saxons -> French -> Dutch -> German, etc. and that is just the Royal Family ).

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Yes, the situation is similar here in the US with our southern neighbors. Living where I do, I am particularly aware of this trend. I remember choosing what language to study in HS and being offered German, French, or Spanish. The choice was obvious to me. I wanted to be conversant in a language that would be of practical use.

. . : slicePuzzle

To nail what I said about the ability of the law to limit the rights, let's quote the 4th article of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen :

quote:

---

Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law.

---

DL44: The law will forbid the obvious signs of religion in the public schools, but the discrete ones are authorized. That way it leaves the students the right to pratice/believe in their religion and keep the liberty to the adepts of other religions ( and the atheistics too ) to not face the signs of another religion they may consider as damned for eternity since they do not believe in the "right" God.

Bugimus:

quote:

---

...but prohibiting an individual from expressing their religious affiliations crosses a line

---

We simply don't see the line at the same place. I consider that the line is crossed when an individual explicitly expresses his/her religious/political affiliation in an institution of the Republic.

quote:

---

So the muslim population is on the rise as is seen in France.

---

I don't think so, in fact I rather think that it's a radical variant of the Muslim cult that is on the rise. At the point that, should say that again, a social pressure is put on some girls/women in the suburbs to wear a headscarf and not a jean or worst a skirt to be some "good" Muslims even if they are atheistics in the first place. See also the speech delivered by Mohammed Latreche or also the ambiguous speechs of Tarek Ramadan.

I share Emperor's view about the migration waves in Europe, well except for his rant about the Royal Family . The previous ones were mainly due to the colonnial past. Since the openning of China to capitalism there's been many Chinese people coming here, but the forthcoming waves will certainly come from eastern Europe.

...

Slightly off topic, but you've been taught only one foreign language in High School ?

...and he was lucky to do so!
Most take little more than a semester or two of a single foreign language and remember none but the curse words by the time they graduate!

Furthermore, almost nobody in public schools in the states is even offered a foreign language in their younger years -- when there is actually a chance s/he might remember it and use it.

Bloody unfortunate, but that's the way it goes over here.

... here, children start to learn a foreign language when they enter in Junior High ( sometime sooner, depending of the cities/schools ), and start a new one 2 years later. When I passed my A Level, in 1997, the ones having a scientific option were allowed to pass a single foreign language at their exam. Usually the languages available are English, German, Spanish, but there's also Russian, Arabic, and some local languages like Breton, Corse, Picard ... in certain places.


[edit] fixing some engrish terms [/edit]

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-13-2004).]

poi,

quote:

---

We simply don't see the line at the same place. I consider that the line is crossed when an individual explicitly expresses his/her religious/political affiliation in an institution of the Republic.

---

I understand that we disagree where the line is. I must say that I personally find it distressing to know that you favor this kind of restriction. Do you think your secular position should be superior to a religious one in a public institution? Why can't everyone be allowed to express their opinions regardless of whether the opinions involve religious beliefs?

quote:

---

Slightly off topic, but you've been taught only one foreign language in High School ?

---

I'm afraid so. I attended a private school in the earlier grades and began learning Spanish in 8th grade. I continued to take Spanish all the way to my second year at university. I am terrible at speaking Spanish but not too bad at reading it

quote:

---

Bloody unfortunate, but that's the way it goes over here.

---

Indeed.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

. . .to not face the signs of another religion

---

You need to be.....protected......from seeing signs of other people's religion???

In the interest of staying "open minded"

Forgive me, but that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

You speak of tolerance, but this is how you go about "tolerating" things - by "protecting" yourselves from having to be exposed to them???

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-13-2004).]

At least people of religion have a reason to be closed minded, they are only following their God. What is yours Poi? I'm sorry, but this is hypocrisy at it's finest.

This outlook troubles me and it is unfortunate to be seeing it happen so much anymore. Everyone is free to express themselves....oh, but not this group, and not that group over there. Where does it end? What is the next right.

DL-44 + Ramasax: I pushed the reasoning of respecting the religious beliefs to the absurd and didn't spoke for my personnal case. I hope it sets your mind at ease on this point.

Nonetheless there's certainly some agnostics or atheistics who are as disrtubed to see some religious signs as a faithful person could be to see someone not believing in the "right" God ( at the risk of eternal damnation ). Not for the same reasons of course. By allowing the discrete signs of religious affiliation, the believers and non-believers are respected and can focus on the people themselves and eventually on their studies.

A side effect of the law will be to ruin the attempts of some radical movements to bias the opinion of the children about people not embracing the "right" religion and its codes. At least, I put high hope in that. Wouldn't it be great if the public school could became the place where the children make friends and discover later that they do not believe in the same God but that it doesn't hinder their friendship in any way ? One may think that's the role of the parents and not of the school but alas if there's a single religion practiced in a family, the chances are high that the young children will be tempted to consider ( due to the education of their parents who fear for the "life after death of their children" ) that religion as "the one".



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-13-2004).]

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be great if the public school could became the place where the children make friends and discover later that they do not believe in the same God but that it doesn't hinder their friendship in any way ?

---

Would it be "great"? No.

What would be great is if children were raised in a society which fosters the idea of education and tolerance, and if those children grew up with friends who they knew to be of different religions, and accepted that.

Again, I have to point out this extreme and dangerous difference: you speak of things which reek of intolerance and a lack of education. People cannot learn to accept people of different religions if we erase the traces of different religions.

I see no difference between a secular intolerance of all religions and a single religion's intolerance of all other religions.
Both serve the same purpose.

I am unsure what the "subtle" signs of people's religion that you speak of even are - can explain that further?


And, of course, the three major religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all do worship the same god anyway...they just all do it a little differently.

DL-44:

quote:

---

What would be great is if children were raised in a society which fosters the idea of education and tolerance, and if those children grew up with friends who they knew to be of different religions, and accepted that.

---

Alas we don't live in the land of the Teletubbies. You've been the first to mention that some/the faithful parents raise their children with the idea that their religion is the only way to go and that not believing in it will lead them to eternal damnation. Giving the opportunity to these children to put the religion aside for a while ( at school ) and do not consider the others from their religious affiliation is a good way to smoothly open their mind to the real world. A world made of mere human beings with several religious beliefs.

quote:

---

People cannot learn to accept people of different religions if we erase the traces of different religions.

---

[ old_vinyl_record_mode ] The new law will not vanish the traces of religion. It'll set some bounds to some religious practices in a certain context for the good of the community. [ /old_vinyl_record_mode ]

quote:

---

I am unsure what the "subtle" signs of people's religion that you speak of even are - can explain that further?

---

Sorry I don't have a list of all the signs recognized by the believer as "official" and religious ones, but I can think of some medals or pendants. But IMHO the most obvious and sincere sign of approval to a religious belief is to have the sacred texts with you, which is a personnal and not proselytic practice.

quote:

---

I see no difference between a secular intolerance of all religions and a single religion's intolerance of all other religions. Both serve the same purpose.

---

Indeed, there's no real difference.

Secular intolerance of religion? Nonexistent generality.

poi is advocating precisely that, meta. Are you saying that his position is uncommon? I hope it is, but I fear it is growing in favor particularly in Western Europe.

. . : slicePuzzle

So, if a non-muslim wears the scarf as a fashion accessory it's ok?

It's seems as if the definition is it's religious signifigance... not very openminded at all.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

UC: That is essentially what I said in the second post here - as far as I can tell they are legislating about nebulous things like intent and how much significance people invest in an object.

Personally as long as the majority of the French support it then thats fine by me (we don't for example have a universal age of consent as these things rely on deep seated cultural factors) but I just can't see how it is workable and I suspect that there will be a number of attempts at prosecutuons which will demonstrate the problems and contradicitions and it will quietly be ignored after that.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Speaking of " [ old_vinyl_record_mode ] "

I just want reiterate...yet again....

The headscarf is not a SYMBOL of the religion, in the way that a crucifux or a bible or such things are.

It is a REQUIREMENT of their religion.

Poi - can you please explain to me how you can lump something that is required in with such things as an optional expression of what your religion is?

Also - what happens when the children in question decide to simply forego the need for outward symbology and simply talk to one another about their religions? This could, of course, bring about [gasp]disagreements[/gasp]. What then?

Will the government pass a law to ban children from speaking of such things?

{{edit - emperor snuck in while I was typing...

I also agree, of course, that if it is what the people there want, then such is their right....I suppose.

The logic and the soundness thereof are certainly open for debate though. . .



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-14-2004).]

* * *

Some clarifications about the project of law in question :

Its exact ( provided that I don't insert some engrish terms ) title is :
Project of law framing, in accord with the principle of secularism , the wearing of signs or clothes expressing a religious membership in the public schools, junior high schools and high schools.

The text have been massively accepted the 10th february in the National Assembly with 494 YES against 36 NO, and 31 blank voices. It have been transmitted the day after to the Senat who must also examine and vote it. Which AFAIR should happen arround the 2 or 3 march. Once the law is accepted by the 2 assemblies ( the National Assembly and the Senat ), a clear version of the text is written ( at the moment the project law is only available as a soup of reference to some others texts ) and the law is granted.

Here comes the meaning and/or role of the 4 articles of the project of law :

1. baning in the public schools, junior high schools and high schools of the wearing of signs or clothes by which the students openly express a religious affiliation. A mediation with the student will take place before and to prevent any disciplinary sanctions.

2. where will the law be applied : there are some local specifications due to some previous laws in application in the overseas territories and departements like the French Polynesia, the Nouvelle-Calédonie, the islands of Mayotte and Wallis-et-Futuma.

3. date of application of the law : from september 2004.

4. the law and its application will be examined one year after the beginning of its application for evaluation purpose and eventual refinement if required.


* * *


UnknownComic: Alas that's a possible pervert effect of the law. This question was raised during the debats because some women coming from Africa or in the overseas territories wear a headscarf for cultural reasons. Honestly I don't have the official answer, but according to the above mentionned 1st article I suppose that if a student go to school one day with a sign or cloth that can be considered as clearly religious, a teacher or tuition advisor will ask to meet her/him in his/her office to figure the ins and outs of that new accessory.


DL-44:

quote:

---

The headscarf ... is a REQUIREMENT of their religion.

---

It's one of the many interpretations of the Koran. On the other hand, and according to the code of the Jewish law one can consider that the kippa is a requirement too, but it doesn't seem to disturb the Jewish to remove their kippa in certain contexts, neither does disturb the highly faithful Christians to put their crucifux under their shirt ( I've had a CS teacher who did that, and it was natural for her to keep her religion for her ). The law of the Republic is the same for all the members of the community but a minority don't want to hear about a project of law.

quote:

---

Also - what happens when the children in question decide to simply forego the need for outward symbology and simply talk to one another about their religions? This could, of course, bring about [gasp]disagreements[/gasp]. What then?

---

Don't worry, we are still completely free to speak ... well not exactly, because for some weird reasons the government bounded it to avoid racial discrimination, proselytism, diffamation. Seriously, people are free to talk about religion, but not to do proselytism.


Emperor:

quote:

---

I just can't see how it is workable and I suspect that there will be a number of attempts at prosecutuons which will demonstrate the problems and contradicitions and it will quietly be ignored after that.

---

Indeed it's quite possible that some groups will attempt to abuse the law. That's where the 4th article, and also the last part of the 1st one, of the law take their importance.

Well another important aspect of that law is that it will make the situation crystal clear for the Directors of schools who had to interpret the previous laws themselves at the risk to bring some inegalities of treatment among the public schools.


Note to self : it's official now, Suho1004 ( where is he BTW ? ) infected me with his monster post virus

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-14-2004).]

Bugimus,

I don't know if you are purposely doing it or not, but quit misconstruing everything I say. I said exactly what I meant.

Secular intolerance of religions is a nonexistent generality.

poi

quote:

---

Don't worry, we are still completely free to speak ... well not exactly, because for some weird reasons the government bounded it to avoid racial discrimination, proselytism, diffamation. Seriously, people are free to talk about religion, but not to do proselytism.

---

This really bothers me because sharing my faith with others is a requirement of my religion. If I was prohibited by law to speak freely about my beliefs, I would consider that a serious injustice. But that is because the US law says that I have a fundamental right to free speech. I don't think this kind of law could happen here because of our First Amendment as I stated earlier.

I do understand that the French people can decide this is their law and I am not saying that is wrong. I am simply pointing out how distasteful I find it.

I think that you are saying you favor the government of France deciding *how* and *when* its citizens can be religious. It seems the government is regulating the exercise of religion. It sounds like you are ok with this. How would you like it if the tables were turned and a religious government came to power, like in the middle ages, and required you to wear religious garb in schools? I am just astounded at this trend.


meta, believe me, I am not interested in miscontruing your words. I must not be understanding your point. Please explain to me what exactly you mean by the term "nonexistent generality".

I took it to mean that it was impossible for secularists to be intolerant of religion in a society. I see poi advocating laws designed to enforce that intolerance. So when I put your words next to his, I see you saying secular intolerance of religion doesn't happen and I see poi advocating exactly what you just said never happens. That is my confusion. If I've got it wrong, I would very much appreciate your help in understanding exactly how. Thanks in advance.

. . : slicePuzzle

"Secular" refers to "those not members of a clergy" (WordNet)
"Secularism" means "rejection of religion and religious considerations." (WordNet)
A "secularist" is "an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion should be excluded from government and education." (WordNet)

To say that secular intolerance of religion is a nonexistent generality is to essentially say that "not all who possess secular perspectives find religion intolerable." Most of us are of the laity, which is everyone except the clergy. My phrase means that "secular intolerance of religion" is not generally applicable (nonexistent generality).

I disagree with secularism. Religion and religious considerations should always be considered as they do affect the ideosphere (like biosphere). As such, it is important to govern (as in "His belief in God governs his conduct.") religions since it is reasonable to postulate that we will never be rid of them, unfortunately.

I am not a secularist for religions should be governed and the populace educated on all religions.

Furthermore, religion is naturally governed by memes, genes, and evolution.

Also: nonbelief, rejection, denial, and abstention do not require intolerance. The belief that secularists are intolerant of religion is an act of bigotry.

Bugimus: Obviously you can freely share your beliefs, but you shouldn't try to influence the people and impose your beliefs at all costs which will be a proselytic attitude. And I'm almost sure your religion command you to be kind with others and not try to force them to believe or do something against their will.

quote:

---

I think that you are saying you favor the government of France deciding *how* and *when* its citizens can be religious. It seems the government is regulating the exercise of religion. It sounds like you are ok with this.

---

I prefer to think of it as "the government of France deciding *how* and *when* its citizens can not be religious". And yes I'm ok with it since it doesn't forbid the people to exercise their religion at home, in the streets, ....

quote:

---

How would you like it if the tables were turned and a religious government came to power, like in the middle ages, and required you to wear religious garb in schools? I am just astounded at this trend.

---

Hopefully in France the religion and government are separated, which prevents to impose ONE religion to every citizen. And I think/hope such a thing (a religious government ) is impossible in France. Anyway in the eventualaty of that religious voted a law to make the student wear a religious garb in schools I'd do so though I wouldn't really enjoy that. I would consider to take some serious actions ( public demonstration, leaving the country, ... ) if that government forced me to wear it all the time.

One last thing that teases me is when you say I'm intolerant and completely avoid to recall that I have this position only in regard of specific context of the public institutions but respect and encourage the equality ( by building more Muslim schools and mosques ) between the religions outside that context.

quote:

---

Hopefully in France the religion and government are separated,

---

This, IMO, is where the biggewst stroke of ignorance falls.

By making laws which limit the freedom of expression of one's religion, and by making laws which inhibit the practice of one's religion, you have already crossed that line.

Make no mistake! You are okay with this law because it enforces things that you agree with.

However, if the tables were turned (be it that the law passed instead enforced a religious belief, or beit that you were a person affected by this limitation of religious freedom), I have *no* doubt that you would be up in arms.

Please - re-read that paragraph. Please pay attention to what it says.

You are supporting something, which - if turned the other way around - you would condemn!

Metahuman's version of word definitions and their alleged implications aside, your non-theistic intolerance of religion is no better than an imposed religion which banned other religions. For the secularist view which rules is no different from any religious view...it simply replaces god with other things,

The whole purpose of not following a religion is that you are not bound by idiotic semantics and rules. Not to simply replace one set of intolerances with another by removing the word "god".



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-15-2004).]

DL-44: What exactly is your opinion of religion?