• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Finally something to agree with Chirac about

Originally posted by Zarn
So you are forcing little girls to not go along with their own religion. That sounds so much better. :rolleyes:

When the way they practice their religion, most of the time forced to do so by their family, prevents them from being normal children at school by forbidding them from having sport or technology classes while shutting them out from other children, yes.

Originally posted by Zarn
Seriously, people are more likely to be religous when they are young, so let them practice and be a part of it.

For the 99th time, studies have shown that in the vast majority of cases it is not the girls' religious beliefs which make them wear a veil, but those of the family.
Now, we cannot stop parents or brothers from forcing them to wear the veil at home or in the streets. But we can at least try to ensure that they get the same education as other children.
After that, if they chose to continue wearing it, it is their choice. Not the one of their family.
 
Now, we cannot stop parents or brothers from forcing them to wear the veil at home or in the streets. But we can at least try to ensure that they get the same education as other children.

I don't understand how the education is any different if they are wearing a veil. The only thing I can think of is that they'll have more trouble hearing the teacher if it also covers the ears. Other than that, nada.
 
When the way they practice their religion, most of the time forced to do so by their family

So when can we expect laws banning parents from taking their children to church (or etc) and "forcing" :eek: religion on their children?
 
So when can we expect laws banning parents from taking their children to church (or etc) and "forcing" religion on their children?

Bah, the political correctness heinis will see to that does not happen.
 
Originally posted by Speedo
So when can we expect laws banning parents from taking their children to church (or etc) and "forcing" :eek: religion on their children?
Nobody is proposing this, are they? And why would anyone?
 
Originally posted by IceBlaZe
I don't understand how the education is any different if they are wearing a veil. The only thing I can think of is that they'll have more trouble hearing the teacher if it also covers the ears. Other than that, nada.
The core problem lies much deeper and is far less ideologically clear (in terms of freedom of religion etc.).
While any liberal Westerner would start by saying that freedom of religion should be granted and that while maybe the school and teachers should not associate themselves with a religion that is completely okay for student he also has to face reality.
And reality looks different. It's not "poor oppressed religious people" against "the evil government" but rather "opressive religious groups" against "the free country".
If you go to (public!) schools in certain districts in Western European countries there is no freedom for those not willing to follow the rules of those religious groups (usually muslims). The very same people that are (for a reason!) banned from spreading their fundamentalist drivel in their home countries (Turkey, many Arab countries) come here to exploit freedom.
Non-muslim teachers and students as well as moderate muslims are harassed, they refuse to speak the local language and justify it all with religion.
Just like it was argumented that school uniforms can be a measure to solve or at least tone down social problems this can be as well.

And just see it as that, a school uniform of some kind. Religious symbols are not an appropriate part of clothing in school. Against school uniforms? Fine, start protesting in Britain.
 
If the veil is banned to protect little girls from the evils of their own religion, then the next logical step would be to protect them from religion entirely, would it not?
 
Originally posted by IceBlaZe


I don't understand how the education is any different if they are wearing a veil. The only thing I can think of is that they'll have more trouble hearing the teacher if it also covers the ears. Other than that, nada.

I suggest you re-read this thread... Particularly Marla_Singer's second post on page 2.
On a practical level, it prevents them from taking part in Sport and Technology classes. On a much more important "relations" level, it causes schoolgirls wearing it to form exclusive groups, while muslim schoolgirls who do not wear it mix with children of other confessions.

Originally posted by Speedo


So when can we expect laws banning parents from taking their children to church (or etc) and "forcing" religion on their children?

Why must you take everything and extend it to ridiculous extrems?
Unless parents wishes to take their children to church during school hours (outside of important religious holidays, obviously), it does not concern the state.
There is obviously no plans at all to draft such a law, which would be of course anti-constitutional anyway :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Speedo
If the veil is banned to protect little girls from the evils of their own religion, then the next logical step would be to protect them from religion entirely, would it not?
Is that supposed to be in response to my post? If so I don't see the point as I didn't argument that way.
 
Originally posted by Speedo
If the veil is banned to protect little girls from the evils of their own religion, then the next logical step would be to protect them from religion entirely, would it not?

Once again, can you stop distorting everything to ridiculous extrems? First, the law is not against Islam, it is against a fundamentalist view of Islam which believes that schoolgirls should wear veils all the time, that women should be subordinate to men and that it is a disgrace for a woman to be treated by a male doctor, even in case of emergencies. Or maybe you support the right of husbands to demand a female doctor for their wives, whatever the emergency? It's the other big revendication of fundamentalist associations.
Secondly and once again, it only applies to public schools. Their parents and/or brothers are free to impose the veil on them outside of school.

BTW, some of the biggest backers of the law are muslim women groups, who know what this "freedom of expression" really mean on the ground.
 
Originally posted by Hitro
Is that supposed to be in response to my post? If so I don't see the point as I didn't argument that way.
See the post above your previous one.:)

@Speedo, in the three threads about this topic, there has been several reason explained to why this is a good idea, although you might not agree with them, which is all right. I can't remember anyone proposing your "next logical step" though?
 
Originally posted by funxus

@Speedo, in the three threads about this topic, there has been several reason explained to why this is a good idea, although you might not agree with them, which is all right. I can't remember anyone proposing your "next logical step" though?

For good reasons - no one did, either on CFC or in France. The idea in question is nonsense, and portraying as an extension of the proposed law is just a rhetoric trick to make defenders of it look like a reincarnation of the Atheist League ;)
 
Sure, it's nonsense today, but tomorrow.........

I simply look ahead. Perhaps it isn't that relevant to the topic at hand, but it'll happen sooner or later. IMHO, even the 1st Amendment in the US won't hold it off forever.

But enough out of me :p
 
This is not a move towards secularization, this acts against free expression.

Once more... Define the religious symbol !
 
Originally posted by Speedo
Sure, it's nonsense today, but tomorrow.........

I simply look ahead. Perhaps it isn't that relevant to the topic at hand, but it'll happen sooner or later.

Well, true. And perhaps that if we allow it, tomorrow the lapidation of mulsim women for infidelity will be allowed in the name of religious freedom.

Both scenarios make about as much sense :p

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Once more... Define the religious symbol !

This law is precisely trying to do that. Just because something is hard to define or has "soft boundaries" does not mean that laws concerning it should not be made.
Or maybe we should not have laws concerning copyright (Is lending a CD to a friend breaching it? Is re-using a small picture from a website the same thing? Is quoting extracts from a book a problem?), death threats (Is "go to hell!" a death threat? Is "I wish you were dead" one?) or racism (Am I racist if I refuse to employ a black as a model because I find black ugly? Am I one if I complain that the black neighbour's tam-tams make too much noise when they are part of his cultural tradition?) ?

Law is all about establishing rules on situations which are rarely clear-cut. It makes law-making harder, but it's hardly a reason to forget the whole idea.

And in any case, the proposed law actually make things clearer - before that, veils were usually forbidden, but it was for the headmaster to decide, and hence different schools had different definitions of what was allowed.
 
:) Well, I think it would be good if parents were not allowed to take their children to church.

I've always felt that a parent's apparent need to indoctrinate their children from a young age stems from an insecurity in their own faith.

It was especially brought home to me hearing an 8 year old on television,'God DESPISES gays - they're filthy' Her stress on despise.

And, yet, God would appear to have no opinion of gays, except in some homophobic minds - that is, it wasn't in the bible.

I think it is of extreme importance that religious matters be banned from public/private schools - depends on where you are which is appropriate - as the problems of bullying and religious extremism in schools is well documented - school children being extremely susceptible.

Free expression - it could also be said that free expression of one religion denies the free expression of another - or at least the possibility. My experience is that christian people tend to shove their beliefs down everyone's throats, while athiests or similar stay quiet, and why? Out of politness - and yet this politness is not reciprocated!

***
Consider it a tolerance - that you may want to pray every class, wear symbols, and teach others at school about your belieft, but, out of respect for their possibly differing beliefs, you refrain. And surely your God could naught but approve of your very good manners! This leaves plenty of scope for preaching in other locations.
***

If a christian gets worked up by a satanist, isn't it reasonable that a satanist might get worked up by a christian?

Frankly, I sick of religious people putting themselves on me - abusing me if I don't agree, getting angry if they don't get special dispensation to abuse me, and generally fighting with everyone else - basically, again, I think, because their belief must be SO shallow, that they NEED everyone around them to believe too.
 
The issue isn't secularism, it's tolerance. A student wearing a scarf or a yamacha (kippa) does not violate the separation of Church and State. Let them wear what they want, I say.
 
Originally posted by funxus
@Speedo, in the three threads about this topic, there has been several reason explained to why this is a good idea, although you might not agree with them, which is all right. I can't remember anyone proposing your "next logical step" though?
In fact, I even said several times that this law was ALREADY in effect about the big catholic symbols for MORE THAN A CENTURY, and still, we're still waiting for the banning of catholicism.

How strange !
 
a good decision, that promotes the separation of state and church
 
I don't see how people can say "this is secularization". Secularization, IIRC, is when you don't allow the state or school or whatever to endorse any one religion, and they must be fair about issues of religion. This makes sense to me, and this should be allowed. However, secularization goes too far when it starts limitied what the STUDENTS can say and do regarding religion. A student in a class should be allowed to argue in defense of religion. The teacher, however, must be fair and balanced. But once you go beyond this and say that students can't wear religious symbols, its not a step too far to say that students can't argue for their religion, or even state which religion they beleive in.

I think the emphasis of secularization must be on the teachers and what they say and promote, not what the students do.
 
Top Bottom