• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Finally something to agree with Chirac about

Originally posted by cgannon64
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. Etc..
Well Cgannon, you're certainly right but I'm sorry to say that small sacrifice deserves to be done if it can make all of us living all together. After all, how many governments in the world have inside them muslim, jew, catholic and protestant members ? We have that right now in France and no one cares ! No one even knows that it's not so common !
 
Originally posted by Marla_Singer
We have that right now in France and no one cares ! No one even knows that it's not so common !

Indeed! I first learned that Laurent Fabius was Jewish when reading a CNN article on him which started with "the Jewish ex-Prime Minister of France..." :lol: None of the numerous articles I had read in the French press ever bothered to mention that utterly uninteresting fact ;)
Though to be quite fair, while protestants and jews are very common in politic to the point where nobody care, muslims, Arabs and Blacks are not. Though it is getting better.
 
Originally posted by Kinniken


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.

Special classes demand outfit change, not only for the religious people. If the school demands that for sports you wear sporting clothes, it can also demand to remove any interfering wearables, religious or not. While this reason is practical, it is certainly not enough to forbid wearing veils in schools all the time.

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.

If the girls are forced by their parents to wear the veil, they can still hang out with girls with no veils. Groups are created in schools anyway, it is not up to the government to disallow such a thing. Pluralism and the right to associate is a democratic value that is just as important in school.
 
Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Well Cgannon, you're certainly right but I'm sorry to say that small sacrifice deserves to be done if it can make all of us living all together.

I don't see how this will help anything, and why this sacrifice is necessary. Yes, some children with birkas or any other obvious religious symbol may get picked on, but it should be the principle's job to punish the person picking on them, not the state's job to ban whatever symbol they use to show their religion.

It is forcing the victims of persecution to make a sacrifice so they can avoid persecution, rather than trying to punish the persecutors. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Benderino
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.
Well, as I said, a nice piece of ideology (which I share in that sense) which fails in reality. There are urgent problems with religious people using their children to undermine the secular state, and those have to be tackled.
 
Originally posted by IceBlaZe


Special classes demand outfit change, not only for the religious people. If the school demands that for sports you wear sporting clothes, it can also demand to remove any interfering wearables, religious or not. While this reason is practical, it is certainly not enough to forbid wearing veils in schools all the time.

True, but then parents who insist on having their daughters wear a veil at school also quite logically insist on having them wear it in the classes in question - which in practice means having the girls skip it.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


If the girls are forced by their parents to wear the veil, they can still hang out with girls with no veils.

True in theory, but proven wrong in practice. As for freedom of association, the girls in question are not forced to interact with girls whose families do not impose the veil; what is forbidden is for their parents to impose on them something which in practice stops them from doing so. In practice, banning the veil does not damage freedom of association, it increases it.
 
Originally posted by Benderino
There are? Since when, and where? Certainly not where I live.
You don't live in Western Europe, right? ;)

And I certainly wouldn't want an involvement of religion with the state as it is in the U.S. (though we have our share of that, too, unfortunately). ;)
 
Originally posted by cgannon64


It is forcing the victims of persecution to make a sacrifice so they can avoid persecution, rather than trying to punish the persecutors. :rolleyes:

:confused: The law in question is not about preventing people from picking on girls wearing veils... It is about preventing families from imposing a costume which prevents the girls from interacting normally with other children. Like having non-muslim friends, for exemple.

Students who pick on people of other religions are usually banned, which is quite normal. The law changes nothing to this, one way or the other.
 
Originally posted by Kinniken
Funny that you would attack Akka for using a "petty debating technique" - and use exactly the same in the same post
Yeah, I just noticed that. Oops. My apologies to Akka for attacking his debating technique, though I do have problems with someone comparing Islam to an ancient irrelevant religion.
Originally posted by Kinniken
Not women, MrPresident. Little girls.
What about little women? The terminology doesn't really matter. They are female and they're under the age of 18.
Originally posted by Kinniken
And you can say what you want
Thanks.
Originally posted by Kinniken
You are not trying to protect the rights of the schoolgirls to express their religion, but that of their families to impose the veil on them.
The imposement of clothing on a child is a matter for the parents, not the state. If a parent tells a kid to wear non-brand name clothes the state should not get invovled despite the fact that the kid will probably suffer socially because of this. If the "little girl" is abused as a result of not wearing the veil then the state should, of course, step in to stop it.
Originally posted by Kinniken
Some muslims, nearly always male, believe that if their wife is treated by a male doctor, she is sinning and are thus demanding that public hospitals, even in cases of emergency, have a woman doctor treat them. If none is available, they want the woman to wait. I honestly ask you, should a democratic state allow that in the name of freedom of religion?
Health of the woman overrides family concerns. However if the women demands to be treated by only a female doctor then you have a slight ethnical problem. I don't want people treated agains their wishes but then I don't want them to die. I suspect this is one of those problems which needs a greater mind than I.
Originally posted by Kinniken
It is about preventing families from imposing a costume which prevents the girls from interacting normally with other children.
So this law prevents families from imposing a costume on Muslim girls by imposing a law. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? Also many Muslim women, and this includes the few I have spoke to about this, want to wear the veil. They consider it part of their faith. Why deny them this? Because you know better? This is parental government gone way too far.
Originally posted by Kinniken
Students who pick on people of other religions are usually banned
Students who pick on any person, regardless of religion, are usually banned. Religion has nothing to do with bullying. Children will always bully other children.
Originally posted by 10Seven
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.
So my father insistence that I listen to "his" music stems from his insecurity in his own musical tastes? Hmm...interesting.
Originally posted by 10Seven
My experience is that christian people tend to shove their beliefs down everyone's throats
I don't think that is limited to just Christians. In my experience vegetarians are the worst, and they literally do shove stuff down your throat.
Originally posted by Kinniken
Now, we cannot stop parents or brothers from forcing them to wear the veil at home or in the streets.
Why not?
 
Originally posted by Kinniken


:confused: The law in question is not about preventing people from picking on girls wearing veils... It is about preventing families from imposing a costume which prevents the girls from interacting normally with other children.

First of all: The whole "picking on" thing directly relates to their social life. :p

Second of all: This still, IMO, doesn't require state involvement. It is not the state's job to see who makes friends and who doesn't. Should they ban veils just because kids won't hang out with kids who do? Its the same question as before. No. They should try to help the kids who are picking on them/isolating them, not ban the things the isolated kids where.

Oh, and another thing: I think you'll find that most veil-wearing (as in strict) Muslims go to Muslim private school. In my area the only veil-wearing Muslims I see are surrounded by other veil-wearing Muslims, because they go to a Muslim grammar school. Most conservative Muslims (as well as Christians, Jews, and all other religions) usually send their children to conservative schools.

Or maybe wearing a veil as a Muslim in the western world isn't conservative. This would be a shock to me though, since most of the Muslism I see or know either don't wear the veil at all or wear a small head one or wear a varient of it that allows them to dress relatively normally. (As in its kind of see-through, or it only coves their head, or they can have their heads open but it covers the rest of them, etc.)
 
Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Is it impossible to you to believe in God and to not wear the veil ? We're talking about small kids here ! I don't see where atheism is promoted in here ! People are the same believers, there's no promotion of anything except the refusal of fundamentalism. :)

Really, I don't see where people can find any promotion of atheism in here. I'm jew, I believe in God, I've been raised in French public school, I've never felt any pressures on me to make me think God doesn't exist or anything else !! That sounds actually as a great shock to me to imagine such a thing... and to be honnest, I consider the french public school doesn't deserve such an insult.

I remember when I was at the University in my first year. A girl was wearing a black niqab (a kind of black ghost suit for people who doesn't know the word). I have really no opposition about it since she was over 18 and then we can consider her choice to be done freely. However, I must admit I felt sorry for her. She was always alone... when we wanted to talk with her, she was scared and just flee...

Of course everyone must remain free to wear a niqab and it would inadmissible to ban it. Actually this would be totally against the freedom of religions. However, the decision of wearing such a dress must be taken by a responsible person, and I can't consider children to be enough responsible to do so inside public school. We are not enough responsible to vote or to drink alcohol as a kid. I consider that kind of choice to be the same. :)

the refusal of fundamentalism is refusal of freedom of religion. i know a girl in my Geometry class who covers her whole body except her head. she wears a scarf-like pieces of cloth around her head, but you can see her face and ears. she supports gay marriage, so obviously she isn't a fundamentalist. if they ban veils, then they should also ban those jewish hats, as well as ban saying the word "creationism." why not ban the use of the word "fish" since the fish is used as a Christian symbol.

The French are promoting the belief of not having a religion. i personally do not believe in God, but Freedom of Religion goes both ways. the state can not interfere with religion, including fundamentalism and religion can not interfere with the state.
 
And still someone who can't make the difference between "interdiction to wear any claiming religious symbol" and "interdiction to believe what you want".

Tiring.
 
Seculerization does not equal banning Religion or religious symbols. Seculerization means that the government and religion are completely seperate.

@Akka
If someone can't wear a religous symbol, then their freedom of religion has been violated. By your definition, if the French government decided to round up all non-Athiests and throw them in a work camp and sterilized them, but still let them worship their God(s), then there is still Freedom of Religion.

What if someone's interpretation of their religon says that they have to wear a certain religous symbol. Two of my friends, who are Catholics, must wear this special necklace, since if they die without it on, they believe that they can't get into heaven. Imagine what would happen if the Californian government banned all religous symbols? Well, obvoiusly it would first be found unconstitutional.

Someone who can't differentiate Seculerization and opressing Freedom of Religion. Tiring.
 
Originally posted by sims2789

@Akka
If someone can't wear a religous symbol, then their freedom of religion has been violated. By your definition, if the French government decided to round up all non-Athiests and throw them in a work camp and sterilized them, but still let them worship their God(s), then there is still Freedom of Religion.
Yeah, that's exactly what's happenning right now in France. What is waiting Bush for to invade France ?
 
School is a neutral ground when it comes to religion and politics.
You aren't allowed to display openly that you belong on any faction while in it.
You call it "restriction of freedom", I call it "respecting the neutrality of state institution".
You take some stupid example with sterilization, I can take the stupid example of the norse believer who must die in a fight with his sword at hand.

What if my religion ask me to be naked ? Should school allow me to go into class naked ? Hey, I'm not violating anyone's right with it !

Religion has nothing to do in school. Religion is personnal, and should be kept personnal. Religion is a PERSONNAL link between a man and his God. Or a PERSONNAL opinion that god is a concept and he doesn't exist.
If they are required to wear symbols, they can. They are just required to not being overly obvious, not being claiming "I'm from this religion !". No publicity for controversial and personnal subjects (politics and religion) displayed in school. I think it's normal and I even think it's great.

I won't even enter in the specificity of the veil itself. By it's nature, it's not even religious (and so forbidden in school), it's even anticonstitutionnal, as it's a submission of the woman to the man. Inequality between two human beings. I find it perfectly appropriate to forbid any religious symbol that symbolize submission and inferiority of a human being to another, especially when put on children.
 
School is a neutral ground when it comes to religion and politics.
Nuetral does not equal Athiest. And at my school, I can display political symbols. I brought a pin that said "Drop Bush, Non Bombs" as well as a picture with Dubya behind a COnfederate flag, and no one arrested me. A teacher has Anne Coulter's book in his classroom as if to advertise it. Anne Coulter is an Imperialist, and her book promotes just that, as well as supression of liberals. Religous symbols should be perfectly acceptable in a school, even if i don't agree with them. And the veil doesn't represent suppression of women if it is used voluntarily, but it should be illegal to force someone to wear one, as it is illegal to force someone to follow your religion.
 
so in france you dont have to say a prayer?? now that i think about i had to do that in school
 
in the United States you don't have to say a prayer either. our Supreme Court has translated our constitution to decide that it is unconstitutional for the government to sponsor any religion(all of our coinage should be unconstitutional, as well as our pledge of alliegence[i skip the "under god" part] should be, but the Feds look the other way on this), but a student may pray on his/her own freewill. they can't force/pressure someone else to.
 
we get forced to , but most people just murmur
 
Top Bottom