Topic awaiting preservation: Banning of Muslim headscarves in French schools?

US Voices Misgivings on Chirac's Headscarves Stand

Opinions? Should the state prevent religious expression in order to enforce secularism? This is exactly the kind of direction I fear we are headed towards in this country.

I would particularly be interested to hear opinions on this from our French friends here. How is this playing out from where you sit?

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs: It is designed so people don't wear 'religious dress' to schools - pesonally I can't think of any good reason for this and I suspect what will happen is that the definition will be tweaked to allow most things eventually.

And what about the case of some kids who wear a cross when they aren't Christian so does that count as religious?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Its possibly not so drastic as initially thought (although still bordering on the silly):

quote:

---

France moves on headscarf ban

Thu 18 December, 2003 12:11

By Joelle Diderich

PARIS (Reuters) - French Education Minister Luc Ferry says he plans to submit to parliament early next year a draft law banning religious symbols such as Islamic headscarves in state schools.

The measure, announced by President Jacques Chirac in a speech on Wednesday, has drawn protests from Muslims in France and across the world. But French religious leaders who voiced concern before the speech were more positive after hearing it.

"There will be a law specifically concerning schools, because this is the central issue," Ferry told French radio RTL. "It will probably be submitted in February, given that it has to be applicable by the start of the new school year in 2004."

Ferry said on Thursday he planned to keep the draft law short and simple, and although he had yet to settle the exact wording he was leaning towards prohibiting what would be described as "ostentatious" symbols of faith.

The minister, who earlier expressed concern over suggestions there might be an outright ban on all religious symbols in schools, said he was satisfied that Chirac had decided to restrict the ban to overt symbols such as headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses.

Pupils will still be allowed to wear discreet symbols of faith such as small Islamic pendants, the star of David or Christian crosses.

The proposal, designed to bolster France's 1905 law separating church and state, followed months of debate on the role of religion in French society which highlighted the difficulties of Muslim integration.

Ali Shakourirad, a member of the Iranian parliament, said the ban on headscarves would limit personal freedom and was a major failure.

But other religious leaders welcomed Chirac's decision to temper a measure they feared could stifle religious expression.

Dalil Boubakeur, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, initially opposed the ban, which he said would single out French Muslims of North African origin. But after hearing Chirac speak he urged young Muslims not to overreact.

Fadela Amara, head of a French organisation campaigning for the rights of Muslim girls, said the move would help counter the pressure of radical Islamists.

"I want everybody to hear the message, especially those who belong to fundamentalist groups," she said.

Grand Rabbi Joseph Sitruk and Father Stanislas Lalanne, head of the French Bishops' Conference, said they were generally satisfied overall with Chirac's speech, although Lalanne said it still left room for different interpretations.

---

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=424981&se ction=news

And as said here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3330831.stm

Its trying to address the symptom not the cause.

It also is required to clarify problems in the law as this has been kicked around for a long time:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2308140

Headscarves and other overt Muslim clothing has been banned in Turkey for a while (as a continuation of Ataturk's work on making it a secular state) and from what I have seen it hasn't actually stopped people wearing them if they want it just makes it more difficult for religious leaders to order strict observance of their rules.

[edit: Although other people have argued that it places the pressure on the women and doesn't work]

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

all persons should be able to practice their religion and their beliefs peacefully without government interference as long as they are doing so without provocation and intimidation of others in the society.

---

Exactly.
I don't see how Muslim headscarves cause provocation or intimidation. This is right up there with banning the words "In God We Trust" on our government buildings, or trying to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. People all over the world are blowing this whole state/religion thing way out of proportion...


Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 12-19-2003).]

Personally, I totally agree with this measure.

The way religion is evolving here in France is quite stupid : some minorities are trying to divert the law to live in their own religious way. The whole problem is not worshipping a religion and showing it, the problem is replacing the French law by another one to follow religious precepts. I am not against the religious crowd, but when religious people live in France, they live in a laic country, and they have to abide by its laws.

For example, in France wearing a veil is forbidden on identity cards, which of course creates problems because some Muslims want to keep it on their identity card. Swimming pools run by Muslims are stricly reserved for women half a day because men don't have the right to swim next to them. Etc, etc... These are just examples, but when the governement wants to get rid of these problems the religious crowd groan. Personally, when I see all the disasters caused in this world by religious problems, I can only acknowledge to this law preventing religious clashes. One shouldn't understand this law as a limitation to the relious freedom, but rather as a preservation of the existing order. In France, the school system is laic. As the result, wearing religious symbols at school is forbidden (although it was tolerated for now). It is a progress. I don't see why we should go a few centuries back in time.

But frankly, I never understood why women wanted to wear headscarves. In this religion, it is the symbol of the inferiority of women. So, on the one hand, Muslims are claiming the right to wear these headscarves to show up in public, they are striving for a total religious freedom, but on the other hand by wearing a headscarf they accept to be bound by very (not to say extremly) restrictive religious laws.

Talk about religious nonsense.

If someone is offended because of a cross, skullcap, or headscarve, that's a lack of tolerance for others. I mean damn, it's not like they are preaching, we are talking clothing and jewelry.

The freedom of an individual to practice their religious beliefs should in no way be impeded by the state. Nobody's religion should be prejudiced against because of the intolerance of others, and that is what it is. The people who come up with and support these laws are intolerant.

Taking away these freedoms is what I call going back a few centuries.

Ramasax

hey hey hey! in my fundametalist school we cannot wear any kind of symbols, chains, jewelery unless they represent christianity...
girls are not allowed to wear makeup, we dress like soldiers, blue pants, no jeans, black shoes(no white stripes allowed) and stupid ugly t shirts...you must shave! you cant even have side burns...not even scratchy beard, its EVIL, SATANIC! my friend is gonna nuke the school cause they force him to shave everyday or he gets warnings and suspencions... damn even at senior year...I am not kidding... its one of the most unintelegent act of mankind and transformation of children into idiots..

and yes moon shadow...you said right! talk about religious nonsese...

Obviously, Ruski, what you've been exposed to has been Christians that are so far right wing that, well...

...I don't go to a Christian school, but I do go to church, and am familiar with the Christian community in my area:

Most people go to church in their street clothes, except for all the (really) old people. Occasionally you'll even see a Nine Inch Nails (or something to that effect) sweatshirt.

You shouldn't judge an entire population based on one isolated incident (or I beleive it is isolated, I don't know how Christianity has evolved in Russia after the breakup of the USSR).

IT's the same thinking that will get you this: If Bob owns a truck, and Bob is male, then all males named Bob own a truck.

If anyone is intimidated by a headscarf, or a cross, or a star of David, or a swastika (the Bhuddist/Oriental symobol), they should be flayed alive.

IT's the tolerance movement backfiring.

By the way you describe it, Ruski, I am assuming this is a private school?

If that's the case, they can do whatever they want, nad there's no reason for them not to set up and enforce the rules as they see fit.

As far as public schools go, I think it is sheer nonsense to ban people form wearing the trappings of their religion wherever they go.

I can see rules set up for special circumstances, where things might be disruptive for the school, but the simple wearing of scarves and pendants is about as harmless as things get...

DL said what my first thought was... If you're attending a private school, you have to go by their dress code. Because you don't have to go to a private school. You could go to a public one, and dress the way you like (within reason - you are out in public...).

If one's expression of one's faith is not disrupting the other students from learning, then it shouldn't be suppressed. It's one thing to be proselytizing in school. It's totally another to be quietly following your faith.
They ought to ask the students if they think it's a problem. Bet you'll find that most of them don't care.

CBF I am not sure what you are trying to say here...and no, I didnt mean all christians are like that...but whatever

yes DL it is private school and unfortunaitly probably the only average costing, english, private school in capital city....all public schools in Purto Rico are spanish and they suck extreme! they are small, smelly, crappy, and ugly...unfortunaitly mine is same the only difference is education is some what better. It has only like 300 students put together from both high school and junior school. The payment is $3000 for a year.
Others english schools cost up to $8000 every year, unfortnaitly I dont have this money to afford it after what happened with my mom and step dad...

well I wasnt complaining here I just wanted to provided the point that banning something religious from schools is nothing to fuss about....I survived...who cares

oops, I come a little late, but like Moon Shadow I agree with the new project of law.

The France have suffered in the past of the relation between the state and the religion. Hopefuly, since ~ one century the principle of secularism is deeply anchored here. At the point that I'm always amazed/scared to hear G.W. Bush tell "God bless the USA". Ok you can think it's just a phrase but it's heavy of sense in the mouth of a president.

I would add that in some areas in France, the young women and little girls are treated like sluts by young mens and teenagers if they wear trendy clothes and/or don't wear a headscarf. Some women ( accompanied by their husband some times speaking in her name ) refused to be cured by male doctors ( even when there was no female doctors available ) for religious reasons. This is also to avoid that kind of behaviors that the project of law have been granted.

Whatever the religion I'd be puzzled to see someone working in a public administration wearing an ostentious religious sign. This person does not represents his/herself but the state, which is secular, and thus he/she must not expose his/her personnal belief. Beside a woman passed an exam, in casual clothes, to work in a public administration then she came to her first work day with a headscarf. Why didn't she passed her exam with her headscarf ? Did she feared to be told that it was incompatible with the principle of secularity going along with her function ?

Another thing that puzzles me is to see little children wearing some religious symbols. From my own experience I don't think a child is able to have his/her own opinion about religion and that's a good thing that the state don't encourage the parents to project their religious beliefs on their children ( which is a form of proselytism ).

Jacques CHIRAC said the law will prohibit the ostentious religious symbols in public schools/highschools, and for the representatives of the state ( it includes people working in public administrations, police departements, public hospitals, courts ... ). But he also stated that discreet signs ( like small christian cross, star of David, hand of Fatima ... ) are obviously allowed. He didn't mentionned private schools nor universities where everything is allowed. Prohibiting the ostentious religious symbols put the people on the same scale. And remember that everything is allowed everywhere else but in public schools i.e. in private and in public ( in the streets, bars, restaurants, hotels, train/plane stations, ... )

Since the French calendar is, for historical reasons, based on some Christians events ( easter, christmas ... ), I regret that Jacques CHIRAC refused to add 2 new national holidays for Yom Kippur and the Aid el Kebir. The governement recently vanished a nationnal holiday linked to a Christian event to collect some funds for the old and dependant persons, so it was difficult to make 1 step in a way and 2 in the other. Whatever, it's already widespread custom to miss work/school for these religious events but it would have been a great step toward more equality.

Anyway, I can understand some countries with a different culture may see that project of law like an infringement to the private liberty.

:PS: Here goes ( an excerpt for english version ) the speech by Jacques CHIRAC, president of the French republic, on "respecting the principle of secularism in the republic" ( in english, arab and french )

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

I guess the French Citizenry is incapable of distinguishing between a persons own personal beliefs and a state institutions acceptance of its workers different religious affectations. I mean, if a person working in a state institution is wearing religious symbols it must mean the state is also wearing them as well. So, it is proper that Papa Chrac shield them from the abuse of headscarves.

Because of the average persons susceptibility to symbolism, it is important for leaders to shield them from said crosses, stars, and headscarves. Perhaps there is a world leader brave enough to stand up to the world God Squads.

Viva La France!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

quote:

---

and that's a good thing that the state don't encourage the parents to project their religious beliefs on their children ( which is a form of proselytism ).

---

I simply cannot accept this argument.

Anyone with any serious religious convictions has an obligation to pass them on to their children. Anyone with any serious religious conviction has no choice but to view their particular religion as "the one", and therefore it could be nothing but folly to simply let their children believe/behave however they see fit.

In much the same way that a pure pacifist will be sure to teach their children non-violence, while a boxer or a soldier may be inclined to teach their children tofight, a parent simply *MUST* pass on to their children what they beleive is right. To do otherwise is total failure.

I can see no good coming from this measure. However, we must be very careful not to jump so quickly to nationalistic prejudice UC.
I read, just a few weeks ago, about a case in the mid-west US somewhere, where a muslim girl was banned from wearing here traditional headwear in school.


It's one of those "before you point your finger, make sure your hand is clean" type of deals...

The kind of lesson more americans desperately need to learn....

errr..., I was being sarcastic. I dont think the state should tell people what to wear.

I dont doubt that some corners of the US are backwards, as a matter of fact, I find it highly plausible that such a thing could happen. It's rediculous, but a sad truth that No country is immune from ignorance and predjudice. All the more reason to keep religious decisions out of the hands of legislators...

It reminds me of an article I once read that attributed a quote to Governor Cuomo from the state of New York. I am paraphrasing here; But it went something like [semi quote] The people of this country once looked at politicians as shepards, but now the flock is running things [/semi quote] and he thought it was a bad thing. Typical liberal. He is so well educated and knows so much more than the common man, that it is an affront to even consider giving decision making powers to the 'sheep'.



______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

public school,,,,,,,,,,, divorce religion connotations, no preferential treatment....

private school......... its private, who cares? they are paying for it....

DL-44: Projecting your religious beliefs on your children goes several steps further than learning them footbal, judo, dance, boxe, comedy, ... how to behave with others ( which includes to avoid to answer to violence with more violence, and I'm not talking of Pacifism but about avoiding some bruises and troubles ). I agree with the transmission of what you think is good for them, but you must also respect their free will and don't forget that they may be probably too young to understand some things that still divides the adults.

The people converting, or trying to, their children and relations, even if they view their religion as "the one", are doing some proselytism.

UnknownComic: It's "Vive la France!"

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

Think about this poi - if you truly beleive that by not accepting christ, you will go to hell where your soul will burn for eternity, can you possibly do anything but pass your beleif on to your child?

You would be essentially damning your child by not teaching them the things they need to know to survive.

As for "proselytism" - you can't convert someone who has no beleif of their own. People's beleifes are formed in large part by their parents and the environment in which they are raised.

Whether the things you learn to beleive are religious in nature or not, that's where they come from.

How can it possibly be said that to push all of your secular beliefs on a child is ok, but to push religious ones is not? That needs some real explaining, because to me it sounds like pure hypocrisy.

And of course, if you've read anything I've ever said, you know how anti-religious I am. But you're speaking of essentially taking away people's rights to practice their religion...

poi, are you a parent?

DL-44: Doing proselytism is the act of making, or trying to make, converts to a religion, opinion, party ... weither they already had one in the first place or not. So, what I said about parents pushing their religious beliefes on their children is true.

You're right, the people believing in God ( whatever the name you give him/her/it? ), heaven, hell and eternal damnation are surely not capable to resist to make their children share their religious beliefes. The fact that most people's beliefes come from their parents doesn't mean that the parents do right or wrong. Parents simply do what they think is better for their children, and I don't blame them for that.

Children are influenceables that's another reason why pushing religious beliefes on them is not ok. That's the reason why I blame some parents. Pushing the principles of secularism is "ok" because it's about tolerance ( even towards the people who don't want to know about the religious beliefs of others ) and the respect of the free will thus when the children have grown up they are able and free to follow their own spiritual road.

As you have certainly guessed I'm atheistic ( I have some difficulties to believe a superior being have created the quarks, protons, high-energy particles, radioactivity, dna, laws of physic, humans, dinosaurs, ... all that in 6 days ) but I understand that people can believe in something and respect them.

Nonetheless I see in the new project of law a modernisation of the law of 1905 and the re-affirmation that people can freely pratice their religion in both private and public but that there is some "sacred" places where religion and politic doesn't have their place. BTW political tracts are forbidden ( I don't know if it's by a law or by the internal rules of schools ) in schools since years, and each of the 3 big religions have a show on public TV every sunday morning.

mobrul: It probably shows, but nope I'm not a parent yet.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 01-03-2004).]

quote:

---

converts

---

That's the key word. You can't convert a fresh mind, you shape it. Whether you shape it to be religious or non-religious, you are still shaping it.

So if you teach your child to not be religious, you are guilty of the same thing as if you teach them to be religious. And by simply *not* teaching a child to be religious, you are essentially teaching it to not be religious.

Please show where the distinction lies...

Children are "impressionable". Yes. Obviously. And again, that is what parents are there for - to establish the right impressions in that shapable mind, according to what they see as the best thing for them. If they didn't, they shouldn't be parents.

quote:

---

Pushing the principles of secularism is "ok" because it's about tolerance

---

Clearly not, as your posts - and the stance of the government, it would seem - are quite intolerant.

Not allowing people to practice their religion is the very opposite of tolerance. It is, in effect, persecution.

tolerance:

quote:

---

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

2. a. Leeway for variation from a standard.
b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent

---

You have demonstrated none of those traits in your statements so far poi, only the opposite.

Whether you are an atheist, a catholic, a jew, or a buddhist, is totally irrelevent.

I simply cannot see any purpose, or any good, in banning someone from wearing the trappings of their religion (where they do not interfere with school activities) in school. It fosters intolerance and thoughtless conformity.

Regarding the word "converts" in the definition of proselytism, I rather see it as a synonymous of adept. Whatever the end result is the same.

By not shaping children's mind that God, heaven & hell exists and that if they do not believe in the Christ their soul will burn for eternity, I think you give them a wider choice and do not prevent them to follow their own spiritual path later.

Secularism is not the negation of the religions but the separation between religions and civil affairs and public education. The tolerant aspect of secularism relies in its respect of the liberty of cult. But it also say that in some circumstances/places the religions do not have their place. It's as simple as that.

And I hope an almighty and loving god wouldn't punish its fellows if they do not wear a religious sign 24/24.

Before that project of law the law stated that is was up to the director of the schools to take a decision themselves if some students wore ostentious religious signs. It was too fuzzy and there was really few cases where the directors and the students wearing ostencious religious signs didn't found a compromise between the principle of secularism, the liberty of cult and the right to attend public education.

Again, in many districts, some girls are insulted and injured if they don't wear a headscarf and/or if they wear slightly feminine clothes. The intolerance of an active minority lead some atheist or not quite praticing girls to wear a headscarf and a jogging to hide their body and to stay home just to avoid the insults and injuries. If schools can become a sanctuary where ostencious religious signs don't have their place, the conformity you blame will at least avoid these problems of intolerance there. Obviously it doesn't solve the problems but limit their scope.

You know, the project law didn't popped up from Jacques CHIRAC's hat one morning. There has been a council of ~20 persons interviewing many teachers, students, parents of students, representatives of various associations, religious representatives, employees of public hospitals, ... during several weeks/months to come up to a list of recommendations on "respecting the principle of secularism in the republic" they gave to Jacques CHIRAC who finally proposed a project of law to be granted ( or not if the deputees decline it but it would be surprising ) and applied from september 2004.

As a French citizen, I have lived in England as a teacher and have had time to analyze and compare France to the UK. In the UK, Muslim women may wear headscarves. In France, they may wear headscarves too. The difference is that in public places they are not allowed to wear them in France. There is no sort of racism in this rule. I compare this practice to the uniforms pupils have to wear in English schools which they don't have to in French schools (in US schools pupils learn the parts of the Constitution by heart which would not be conceivable in France). On a certain level, there is a need for bringing people to a same level.
In France the reasons are historic. In the Middle Age, the Church had full powers over the country because it was the only big entity among battles of many kingdoms. It was a big machine that had to get rid of any threat to remain strong. Scientists were brave to show their discoveries as they could be called witches or sons of the devil and they could face death. Such a dogmatic religion survived until the Revolution but was eroded little by little as people needed freedom and a better life. Heavy taxes to the church and the lack of freedom were no evolution. After the Revolution, the chuch faced a lot of opponents. There was an obvious need to change society. Napoleon is going to give the state the powers it needed. The 1791 Constitution distinguishes the act of birth from the baptism ceremony, the act of death from the burial, Cimeteries are 'run' by towns, The Constitution of the Church and its cults are abolished.... The State becomes the head of France.
The Church no longer receives taxes. The state funds civil projects of the church, the renovation of buildings...only.
Living in France is very different from being in England. The UK still has its Queen, the British pay taxes to the church which sometimes gives its opinion on political matters. In France the 3rd Republic which was THE real first laic Republic was based on the separation of the church and public places. Allowing obvious religious signs would be seen as a threat if it was made common as the rules the Republic would no longer have a meaning, the Republic itself would be threatened. It would be as if some pupils in an American classroom were being rude at the American flag.
Also: we regularly hear of some Muslim men threatening Muslim young women because they don't wear headscarves, sometimes they stab them or rape them and this happens more and more often. These people are enrolled by Muslim fundamentalists and the French consider this as a step backward when women are such free citizens in France...
There is a need to unity in each country and having travelled from Japan to the US and all over Europe, I still think France is the big country of tolerance. I have many English friends living in France from professors of University to pensioners (70% of the British want to live in France or Spain), they love their life and feel no sign of racism.
Stephen

quote:

---

And I hope an almighty and loving god wouldn't punish its fellows if they do not wear a religious sign 24/24.

---

But that is not your call to make, now is it?

quote:

---

By not shaping children's mind that God, heaven & hell exists and that if they do not believe in the Christ their soul will burn for eternity, I think you give them a wider choice and do not prevent them to follow their own spiritual path later.

---

~sigh~

Again, you ingore the simple basic fact - IF a parent BELEIVES that to not accept christ is to burn in hell for eternity, then there is no choice for that parent but to teach their child to have faith in christ. PERIOD.

Just because you don't beleive you need to accpet christ, doesn't negate a devout christian parent's personal repsonsibility to their child.

quote:

---

But it also say that in some circumstances/places the religions do not have their place. It's as simple as that.

---

Certainly.

But explain to me how and why a child in school falls under this concept?

GIve me a valid reason that a child should not wear the standard garb of their religion while in a classroom.

The way I see it, the only way it can do harm would be because others would not be tolerant of that person's religion. And if the public cannot have the religious tolerance that you speak of, then hiding religion is not the answer! Educating the people is...

Stephen - I think the general history is relatively well understood, but again - the church having once been a large and powerful political entity in the region is no justification for such seemingly arbitrary limitations on religious freedom.

I also don't follow you in regard to muslim fundamentalists punishing women who don't wear their scarves - how does this relate, and what do you think is gained on this front by banning the wearing of these scarves?

quote:

---

what do you think is gained on this front by banning the wearing of these scarves?

---

More punishment?

I mean, if we are to believe the justification for this rule, how does it prevent the punishment? IF they will punish women for not wearing the scarves, what's to stop them from not allowing the women into public.

All the rationalizations in the world will not change the truth that this rule is intolerant in and of itself. I wonder if it was men wearing the scarves, if this rule would have even been suggested...



______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

DL :

I think there are here different ways to see the education of the young. I'll give you an example. My parents are openly anti-religion, in their opinion practising any religion is a slow degenerating process that leads to stupidity. So if I follow your reasonning, they should have taught me not to practise any religion, and to avoid it by all means. However, they didn't. They just let me choose my own way. I am an atheist now, but they didn't influence my choice. And it is the same for religious people ! Why should they convert their children to their beliefs, why couldn't they let their children make their own choice ? Of course any parent have to teach his children the 'right things', but converting your own children to your opinions is precisely the contrary of what I call being open-minded.

Now, I am not a parent, my opinion may not face reality, but this is what I wanted to say. And of course, I am aware that most people will disagree with this.


I also think there's a big difference between France and the USA. The USA is a religious country (well, at least much more than France). There, the religious associations are almost untouchables by the law, and I don't even speak about the televangelists etc etc... The Americans live in a religious bath. I think, but I may be wrong, that you are much more used than us to living with religious people. Even the American governement is religious; like Poi, I'm always puzzled to hear G.W. Bush tell "God bless the USA". However in France the state is laic, and therefore, religions were banned from public school not to interfere with the education. By attending to a public school, you are attending to a state school, that is to say a laic school. It is forbidden then to wear religious symbols. Of course it doesn't hinder anybody to see a religious symbol, and for you it is a symbol of intolerance, but for us, it is the mere application of our constitution.

You are asking what is the problem with wearing a religious symbol at school, but the problem is the opposite in my opinion. What is the problem with not wearing a religious symbol at school ? To the best of my knowledge, people having a *real* faith in a precise religion do not need to wear various symbols at school to practise rightly their religion. As far as I am concerned, a religion is something that works inside of us, right ?

Nonetheless, I must admit that our cultures are slightly different, perhaps that's why we see this problem under different views.

Last of all, I personally think that banning such headscarves should not be restricted to schools. Headscarves symbolize the inferiority of women, they symbolize all these idiotic rights the Musulmans have on their wives. For the good of freedom, and for the good of women, they should be completely banned.


Edit : writing proper english...

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 01-04-2004).]

quote:

---

I am an atheist now, but they didn't influence my choice

---

Nonsense.

Perhaps they didn't say "you need to be an atheist", but that doesn't mean they did no tinfluence you - they still did the things to shape your mind in a non-religious way.

quote:

---

people having a *real* faith in a precise religion do not need to wear various symbols at school to practise rightly their religion.

---

And again, I won't disagree with the concept of that statement - but it's not for me or you to decide whether their religion calling for them to wear such things is really necesssary or not.

If their religion requires them to dress a certain way, and that way is totally unobtrusive - such as a mere head scarf - then banning them from doing so is just plain silly.


I just truly do not get it.

Banning religious law is one thing. Banning religious groups from controlling the government - great.

But banning people from practicing the harmless tennents of their religion just baffles me.

Again - please explain why it matters that it is in a school?

What difference does that make? It simply being a government run institution doesn't explain the distinction....

quote:

---

For the good of freedom, and for the good of women, they should be completely banned.

---

YAY! well said MS!

quote:

---

Now, I am not a parent, my opinion may not face reality, but this is what I wanted to say. And of course, I am aware that most people will disagree with this.

---

Not being a parent puts you kinda at a disadvantage when using parent-child argumentatives. The first child makes you insane, the whole world changes and the child is an angelic gift given especially to you...

Until the second child comes...

Then you learn how selfish and mean children can be.

The third...?

Well, the third teaches you why wild animals will sometimes eat their young... LOL!

My point? errr... the screaming hellions have blurred it from my mind. But thankfully there is coffee... and cigarettes... Ahhh, brief respites in a tumultuos world. Oh, but ya cant smoke around the selfish little brats, that being said, I need to step outside....

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

as far as parents, children and religion goes, i can only share what i've done and what's worked for me to this point. i'm a fairly open minded parent, so when nik (my son) was 5 got interested in church through a friend, i (and my husband at the time - nik's dad) didn't have a problem with it. neither his father or i subscribed to any religion but were both spiritual and felt (and still do feel) that nik needs to choose that path for himself.
he's tried several differnt religions/churches and each time either i or his father and i would go to the church first to find out exactly what they were teaching. while we didn't have a problem with him exploring religion, we weren't goin to let him attend some hell fire and brim stone church where he's taking up snakes and speaking in tongues. after lengthy conversations with the head of whatever church it was at the time, explaining the situation, how we felt etc, nik would start attending.
over the last 7 years, he's been to mormon churches, Jehovah's Witnesses churches, baptist churches etc and i think it's been a good experience for him.
but, if i were of a specific religion, i would be passing that religion on to him as the way to go. and i guess in a way, encouraging him to believe in something, regardless of what, rather than believing in nothing at all, is kinda the same.

i agree with DL on that i don't see a problem with children or adults wearing religious items in schools or where they work. it really reeks of intolerance. it makes you uncomfortable, so hide it. that's just silly.

not wearing headscarves is not going to liberate women either.

I strongly disagree to teach childtren about religion at early age, especially like 5...the most important should be given to our children is education in first place, once the kids gets education IMP he can finally start expierencing the religions if parenst let him/her to chose it. ( I did say at the age of 13) But when they start going to different churches at early age, they will be confused, might start doubting and so on( unless you are taking him to "the right" and only church and teaching him "the true" faith.)

just my 2 cents

I recently became a parent -- just a bit more than two months ago.
Something a parent learns VERY quickly is that kids are sponges. That's a cliche, certainly, but it is so absolutely true.
Even at only 11 weeks old, my daughter is already mimicing my and her mother's facial expressions. It's even more so in older children.

My wife and I, from August 2002 to July 2003, parented (exclusively cared for and raised) two children not our own. They were 6 years and 3 years old.
They came to our home with no manners and very little social skill. The six-year-old knew none of the letters of the alphabet, could not count to ten, had no interest in learning of any sort. The three-year-old was also not acting developmentally appropriate. He could not dress himself (and had no desire to try!), could not sit still for even 3 minutes, could not run, throw a ball, or stack blocks.
They were, and are, very sweet and friendly children who, through no fault of their own, simply were not exposed to the things to which kids should be exposed.
In short, they were taught nothing! They were left, essentially, on their own. They had never (or very rarely) interacted with other children. Their entire day was spent in front of the TV or game console. Their own mother did not read to them, have meaningful talk with them, encourage them or teach them. They were taught nothing...and they knew nothing.

Within the first few weeks of them living with us, my wife and I did not produce three dozen rules and regulations. We did not try to directly teach them manners or etiquette. We layed down a handful of very general household rules and then simply lead our lives. We read to them each night (as we read to ourselves or each other each night). We put our napkin in our lap when we ate. We worked in the garden and went to the park. We lived our lives.
Soon, they were putting their napkins in their lap when they ate -- simply by watching us. Within a month, the six-year-old offered to set the table for dinner, and did it with few (and only minor) errors -- simply by watching us.
The three-year-old boy became more agile, balanced and strong from playing and working with us outside (something he had never done before. Can you imagine, a 3-year-old who has never thrown a ball, ran in the yard or played in a park!) Though only three, he soon grasped the essentialls of weeding a garden and could do it without uprooting many of my herbs.
The 6-year-old girl could read at an age appropriate level -- and wanted to! -- by the time they left us. The three year old could count to ten and learned basic shapes.
They learned (as well as six and three-year-olds can) how to be a lady and a gentleman, how to live and enjoy life, how to be people.
They learned this all with very little direct influence of us on them, but a whole lot of us just being us.

To take this long story and make it short, (and DL said it clearly enough up above, but I'll reiterate) kids learn from their surroundings and their environments with extreme (almost alarming!) ease.

As a parent, to do is to teach.

While I can hope that all parents will teach their children tolerance and respect for different religions, cultures and philosophies, it is not only unwise, but simply impossible for a parent to NOT impart upon his/her child his/her religion, culture, traditions and philosophies.

[edit: spelling error]

[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 01-05-2004).]

Can someone translate this for me;

quote:

---

To answer in a narrow mind close to yours, I will tell you that French kids, Muslim kids in France don't have to pray every morning in front of Papa Bush American flag. They are free to think. It is why France has been and will always remain the country of free thinking. In France there is no brainwash, whether at school, in newspapers or on TV. This explains a lot!! I travelled in the US, Japan, Europe, lived in the UK but like 70% of the British that dream of living in France, I don't think there is on Earth a more tolerant country than France. And if you wanted to see the trruth, coming to France, you'd realize there is no propaganda as there's no need for any here.
>America has been in war with all major countries in history except with France. In fact, it even gave the US its independence fighting against the English for the US freedom...

---

Am I being insulted? I thought maybe I was with the way this email started but after muddling through the missive I am just not sure...

And as far as US not going to war with France... What's the point? They got no oil, the women are hairy, and I'm pretty sure we already have the recipe for bread and cheese. Wasn't it Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, who said;

quote:

---

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/babbin.htm
" . . . you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind."

---

I mean, if we wouldnt bring them to war, why even bother fighting them when there is nothing worthwile to plunder?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

[This message has been edited by UnknownComic (edited 01-07-2004).]

quote:

---

except with France. In fact, it even gave the US its independence fighting against the English for the US freedom...

---

That's quite the overstatement.

Helped? Certainly.

Gave? Hardly.

I don't think the continental army was just sitting around waiting for someone to deliver them throughout the revolutionary war

But that's a discussion for another thread.

I really just want to second Lacuna's statement - banning scraves is not going to liberate anybody.

It's a very superficial and arrogant view to think that by forcing people to conform, you will change their minds and spirits.

And again points towards france as being far less "free-thinking" and tolerant than you guys seem to think it is.

Quite simply I think that when you move to another country, it should be YOU that has to adapt to that country's culture, and not the other way around.

With that said, it's not going to hurt anyone to have someone wearing a headscarf. But, there are boundaries that should be set.

For example: I go to a school with alot of Muslim and asian people. It's in Canada, and they're the minorities around this area, but there just happens to be alot of them in this faculty. Because there are alot of Muslim students here, there are alot of headscarves. That's cool, it doesn't bug me. However, one day I caught a guy washing his feet in the drinking fountain. Now apparently, this is a part of their religion, and quite frankly, it was disgusting. That's an example of boundaries being crossed.

So if France thinks that wearing a headscarf is crossing a boundary, then I think the Muslims have to respect that. Especially if the school requires a dress code/uniforms which headscarves may not be a part of.

Also, DL is right when he says

quote:

---

Anyone with any serious religious convictions has an obligation to pass them on to their children. Anyone with any serious religious conviction has no choice but to view their particular religion as "the one", and therefore it could be nothing but folly to simply let their children believe/behave however they see fit.

---

Which probably explains why I'm not very religious.

[This message has been edited by synax (edited 01-07-2004).]

I'm on the fence on this one. I can see where banning of "ostentatious" religious symbology in schools can be of a benefit. To a degree, it levels the playing field regarding preconceived notions about a person. Granted, one can still make assumptions based on skin color, hair color/style etc... but it becomes a little more sketchy when one's religion is not displayed to public view. Religious symbols can be a distraction, especially to children. It draws attention to something that is "different". The question is whether the distraction is enough that it impacts how children learn.

On the other side, a secular government that supports free thinking and freedom to practice your religion of choice should not be stepping on those expressions. A state that becomes to secularly minded without sensitivity to religions is basically no better than a theocracy - without the religion. As long as disruptions are minimal and no one is being harmed by the symbol of choice then I see no reason why the practice can't be allowed.

And the latest - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3437133.stm

I want to add that the Socialist Party wanted to alter the text to ban all visible signs of religion which is an absolute NO-NO in regard of the human rights and the liberty of beliefs and practice of a religion.

I'm glad to hear that, poi.

It passes as expected: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0204/newswire021004.htm

. . : slicePuzzle

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?

DL-44:

quote:

---

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

---

Sharing an opinion and imposing it are two different things. Fortunately the first one is authorized while the second is convicted.

quote:

---

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

---

Well that's not what I said. I said "I would consider to take some serious actions ( public demonstration, leaving the country, ... ) if that government forced me to wear it all the time." which is far different from the hypotetical law you and Bugimus suggested. And again, ( and again, and ... ) the project of law only talk about the single context of public schools.



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

Religious intolerance in France

• Overview of the Counter-cult movement
• 1981: Cult hysteria begins in France
• Prohibiting wearing of headscarves by Muslim women
• Taxing the Jehovah's Witnesses
• Other cases
• Government anti-sect mission
• Recent developments

France does not have the monopoly of "religious intolerance" : RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN THE U.S., AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.

I've just noted the following sentence about the Jehovah's Witnesses :
They have a separate company that prints and distributes magazines and books. The latter pays taxes to the state as a commercial organization. But until now, the main religious organization has been free of taxes.

wtf it's absolutely normal that the printing company pay the same taxes as any other other company. If it was the cultual association who printed their publications itself it'd be exempted of taxes like any religious organization. A company IS a company NOT a religious association.

Regarding the cult hysteria and various anti-sects missions I think the mass murder-suicides and mental manipulation of the sects in the 80's and 90's gave us some solid reasons to get and/or consolidate informations about them.

I prefer this British suggestion - I think we need more clear thinking lessons in school:

quote:

---

Non-religious RE lessons idea

Religious education - compulsory in English schools - should include discussion of non-religious beliefs, a think tank report suggests.

The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) said students needed to acquire skills to discuss ethical dilemmas.

Religious education (RE) is not part of the national curriculum but by law all schools have to provide it.

Only now is the QCA curriculum regulator drawing up a national framework for teaching RE.

Weekly attendance

An IPPR report coming out on Monday says RE should be widened to include non-religious belief systems such as atheism, agnosticism and humanism.

It should encourage the study of philosophical and ethical problems and teach young people to evaluate evidence and argument.

Even the name should go, to be replaced by something like "religious, philosophical and moral education". In Scotland, for example, it is "religious and moral education".

IPPR senior research fellow Ben Rogers said: "Now that only seven per cent of Britons attend a weekly religious service, many are arguing for the abolition of RE as a compulsory subject - we disagree.

"RE has an important place in the curriculum - but only if it's brought up to date."

'Bias'

It was important that people learned to converse with those of different faiths and think critically about their own.

"Dropping religion from the syllabus, or banning the expression of religious beliefs from schools, as in France, won't make religious strife go away - if anything it will exacerbate it.

"Religious education can play an important part in combating prejudices."

But too often it had "a pro-religious and in some cases anti-science bias".

The IPPR said there were almost as many RE syllabuses in England as there were education authorities, with each opting to draw up their own.

The QCA plans to consult widely on the content of the new framework.

"IPPR believes it is vital that not just teachers and faith groups, but children, parents and the wider teaching community are consulted and involved."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/education/3486537.stm

Published: 2004/02/15 00:11:18 GMT

© BBC MMIV

---

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

A company IS a company NOT a religious association.

---

poi: Tell that to the Church of Scientology.

metahuman: I'm [edit : after metahuman's reply ] not [/edit] sure to take your words with the sense you meant, but I find that funny.
With the affairs of extorction of funds around the Church of Scientology, that religious movement have a bad image in France.

The laws of 1905 are clear on the way and requirements to declare a religious movement and the advantages it can have.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-16-2004).]

I know that France gives the CoS a hard time. That's a given.

Emps, that article is not too bad, actually. Teaching more about how to learn from each other's differences cannot be a bad thing. As long as we don't suppress religious thought in favor of secular and visa versa, we may be on the right track. And I completely agree that simply closing our eyes and hoping that will solve problems will not work. I think it is better to face the problems we have with living in pluralistic societies and give our children tools to live together with less friction.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs: Exactly - teaching kids to be able to assess different ideas and draw their own conclusions about things has to be a good thing.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org