French Secularism

[MCdread]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Akka, youre the one thats acting stupid by being insulting. You dont understand a simple statement like 'banning religion is not a neutral act' ? Are your poor logic skills the result of being educated in the French public school system, or is it just you?

The point is that no one is banning religion.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by MCdread
The point is that no one is banning religion.

In this building, you can wear a yamulke. However, in THAT building over there, we've decided that you cannot wear a yamulke. In THAT building, religion is banned.

 

[MCdread]

In THAT building religious symbols are banned. In the USA there are several restrictions on smoking, you can't smoke in a lot of buildings: is smoking banned in the US?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Jews have been wearing kippas to school for years without it being any less secular.

Maybe in Israel but not in France.

The values have not changed - yet you are changing the laws. Are you sure the former laws did not fit those values?

The law isn't changing, it's getting clearer. Before, the decision had officialy to be taken by school principals. Actually, school principals had to bear all the responsibility of it because it was their own decision. Now, principals will be protected by the law. It's just a transfer of responsibility from the principals to the state.

And while you say these things, you forbid the followers of these people from wearing symbols of their beliefs. You see nothing wrong with this

Teaching Historical facts is way different from teaching religious principles. It works this way for a century in France, I don't see no reason why it would work differently afterwards.


Actually, I think it's more secular education that you hate than the new law. If it's such awful for you to accept the idea education and private interests shouldn't be linked... then there are still catholic, protestant, jew and muslim schools in France.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Mcdread, now youre equating peoples religious beliefs with a habit which is bad for peoples health? Is that the French idea of neutrality?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Excision is a mutilation consisting on cutting girl's clitoris to avoid them to have sexual pleasure.

 

[MCdread]

Nope pothead, you're he one doing that. I'm just using a counterexample to your logic.

 

[Speedo]

Giving up here would simply mean that they would then put the fight a bit further.

So? Its exactly the same in the other direction. Today you can't display a religious symbol... Tomorrow you can't go in if you're religious... Next week you can't be religious at all.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Actually, I think it's more secular education that you hate than the new law. If it's such awful for you to accept the idea education and private interests shouldn't be linked... then there are still catholic, protestant, jew and muslim schools in France.

I strongly support secular education. What I dont support is the state trying to control an individuals practice of his or her religion.

 

[MCdread]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Excision is a mutilation consisting on cutting girl's clitoris to avoid them to have sexual pleasure.

Also called feminin circumcision AFAIK.

 

[Enemy Ace]

State sponsored education is ridiculous.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Maybe in Israel but not in France.

Are you kidding?
Jews living outside of Israel tend to be more conservative.
Actually no one wore a kippa in my school.

The law isn't changing, it's getting clearer. Before, the decision had officialy to be taken by school principals. Actually, school principals had to bear all the responsibility of it because it was their own decision. Now, principals will be protected by the law. It's just a transfer of responsibility from the principals to the state.

You could say the same thing about pretty much any principal decision which will be transferred to a law, democratic or not it may be.

 

[Speedo]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Excision is a mutilation consisting on cutting girl's clitoris to avoid them to have sexual pleasure.

That would be female circumcision then.

 

[MCdread]

Originally posted by Enemy Ace
State sponsored education is ridiculous.

Thank you for your insight and showing us your point of view, feel free to add more of your enlightening remarks.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by MCdread
In THAT building religious symbols are banned. In the USA there are several restrictions on smoking, you can't smoke in a lot of buildings: is smoking banned in the US?

1. cigarette smoking is banned in certain buildings because cigarettes smoke is toxic and harms people. Is that how the French view religion? If so, I repeat: such a position is not being neutral.

2. In the buildings where smoking is prohibited, smoking is banned.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
I know what the target is allegedly.
However, don't be short sighted. We both know what the longterm goal is - and we both know what brought up the issue. I did not hear of any recent complaints in schools, and Jews have been wearing kippas to school for years without it being any less secular. There is NO difference between taught school material to some students wearing a kippa. It stings in the eyes of the French to see Muslim women with headscarves going to school - so there goes the ban. It is purely aimed at Islam - the kippa and the "oversized cross" (the phrase alone is a joke) are just for PC. You know, lip service.

Bother to read previous posts next time, before putting again on table false arguments that have been already answered :

Because the fight against Christians was resolved one century ago, and the christian community accepted the situation one century ago.

Or perhaps did you think that they accepted it without a blink at the time, and would suddendly reawaken one hundred years latter, just because ?

The muslim community is largely from immigration, and a part of it hasn't been integrated, and refuse the french values. So the trouble with secularism arise with this part of the community. What's surprising about it ?

YES the target actually is Muslims, because the fight against Christians has ended ten decades ago. But it's not a war against Islam, it's just that the actual fundamentalists refusing secularism are Muslims.
We had our share of Christians fundamentalists refusing secularism in the past. But it's now the PAST. The fight to get crosses out of school has been as intense as the one to get veil out of school. But it's been settled for a long time.

The goal is secularism. The target change according to the waves of religions.

You know and I know that this one's different. You are only fooling yourself by saying differently.

I may fear that this one is different. But I don't KNOW nor can ASSURE it is.

The values have not changed - yet you are changing the laws. Are you sure the former laws did not fit those values?

The laws aren't changing. The only thing changing is the classification of a veil, which is about being flagged as "revendicative religious symbol", and then being automatically banned from school, while it was before the responsability of the school staff to decide if a religious symbol was discreet enough or revendicative.

The way I see it - the new law is a law regarding a new situation, not a recent important addition to the values. Secularism can be just fine while still allowing religious people to dress according to their religion. It doesn't contradict any democratic value - and it doesn't change the material taught in school. In addition, it is not missionary. To say that a kippa (the only thing I can knowingly comment on) is missionary is absurd. Actually, it isn't that visible.

If it's barely visible, if it's discreet, if it's worn in a non-revendicative fashion, then it'll be tolerated without fuss.
If it's big, visible, revendicative, it won't.

The veil IS big, visible and revendicative. So it's being flagged as such by the law, to avoid bickering on the subject each time the situation arise.

Again, I don't know who you are trying to convince here - you are probably talking to a lot more french people than I am, and you are actually living in France. You know this immigration is different.

I know that I FEEL this immigration different, because of the very different cultural background of the immigrants.
But I also know that EACH generation felt EXACTLY the same way about each immigration wave.
So is this wave REALLY different, or is it just the usual feeling that each generation feel about new immigrants ?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Akka, youre the one thats acting stupid by being insulting. You dont understand a simple statement like 'banning religion is not a neutral act' ? Are your poor logic skills the result of being educated in the French public school system, or is it just you?

You'll be allowed to make depreciative comments on my logic skills and my education when you'll be able to understand the difference between "banning religion" and "forbidding the display of religion in a restricted area that has for goal to be religious and politically free".

Originally posted by Speedo
I don't know what you mean by "excision." Perhaps circumcision, but I don't see how it relates to the topic.

Excision is the ablation of several part of the female sexual organs, to prevent them to feel pleasure, as pleasure is considered in such cultural background to be the exclusive right for men.
It's currently done by immigrants families, and was of course totally banned by french laws.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Akka
So is this wave REALLY different, or is it just the usual feeling that each generation feel about new immigrants ?

When the immigrants coming into France were Christians, this wasnt an issue. Now that the immigrants are Muslim, its an issue. It REALLY is different.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The idea in principle would be right, to separate church from state.

However it would be impossible to tell which are religious symbols and which are not. What if, for instance, kippahs will become trendy to non-jews? Can you prove my avatar is not a hidden religious symbol?

This decision also limits free expression and may actually be unconstitutional.

 

[Speedo]

If someone wears a shirt with, say, an American flag on it while in a French state institution, would they be kicked out or arrested?

If wearing a shirt with a cross on it is pushing religion, then surely showing the US flag would be advocating that France should be ruled by the US, and thus be treason.