French Secularism

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Akka
forbidding the display of religion in a restricted area that has for goal to be religious and politically free

How can an area like that be considered to be "politically free"? Forbidding a private citizen from wearing a symbol of their religion is a political act.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Speedo
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.

No it's not the same. Because one is "we'll impose our religion here" and the other is simply "keep state separated from religion".
You just, as many in this thread, completely mix "separation of state and religion" and "persecution of religious people", which only show your lack of understanding of the principle.

It's been more than one century than state is separated from religion. I still don't see religious people being forbidden from school. So much for your "argument".

 

[Speedo]

Banning religious people from govt buildings, and then banning religion itself = sperating church from state? Well, I feel sorry for all the religious people in France then. Maybe we should liberate them after we finish with Iraq

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Akka
Because one is "we'll impose our religion here" and the other is simply "keep state separated from religion".

When the state forbids private citizens from wearing symbols of their religion, the state is NOT keeping itself seperate from religion, what its doing is waging war on religion.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Which is just as bad as embracing religion. Separate should mean "indiferent towards"

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Which is just as bad as embracing religion. Separate should mean "indiferent towards"

Exactly.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
When the state forbids private citizens from wearing symbols of their religion, the state is NOT keeping itself seperate from religion, what its doing is waging war on religion.

You still haven't got it, eh ?

Originally posted by Speedo
Banning religious people from govt buildings, and then banning religion itself = sperating church from state? Well, I feel sorry for all the religious people in France then. Maybe we should liberate them after we finish with Iraq

Religion has never been banned, religious people has never been banned from government building.

Let me repeat it for you. Slowly. So that you can catch each word, one at a time :

It's been more than one century than state is separated from religion. I still don't see religious people being forbidden from school. So much for your "argument".

Which means that nobody has been banned from school for believing in a religion, and that despite a whole century of interdiction of revendicative display of religious symbols.

Now, that's it ? Need to have it explained a bit slower ?

WE are obviously not the one in need of a becoming a bit more literate.
At least we're able to read a sentence in our own langage without reversing the meaning...

 

[Zamecnik]

Wow, what a great thread and I mean that! It has the makings of CFC classic. A rare poster here but a long-time lurker, I've found my sympathies thrown here and there by the contributers to this thread. My authoritarian leftist leanings applaud the French but then my American side kicks in and says, that just isn't right, it just feels too much like taking a "right" away from someone.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Authoritarian leftist leanings and Americanism do not make good bedfellows.

 

[Speedo]

You said:

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

I said:

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.

You said:

No it's not the same. Because one is "we'll impose our religion here" and the other is simply "keep state separated from religion".

Check your glasses before you throw insults

One side would be imposing religion, yes, but the other side is getting rid of it. Seperation of church and state is just a little rock in the middle that we happen to be straddling for the moment.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Speedo
You said:

I said:

You said:

Yes. *I* still know and understand what I had written.

And you still don't make sense.

Keeping the state separated from religion doesn't mean "prevent people from being religious", it means "forbid people from displaying and promoting their religion while they're into a state-dependant facility".

YOU are the one that equate "drawing a line between state and religion and keeping it in place", and "forcing a religious belief the farther you can into a laic state".

Check your glasses before you throw insults

Check your understanding skills before being the first to throw insult. I'm not the one that started with talking about "literate you once we've done with Iraq". Don't complain if your own (misplaced) arrogance fires back.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Akka
Religion has never been banned, religious people has never been banned from government building.

1. The wearing of religous symbols by private citizens is banned in state institutions.
2. Any private citizen that refuses to comply, and wears a religous symbol, will be barred from that institution.
conclusion: Religion is banned in state institutions.

nobody has been banned from school for believing in a religion

No. They are banned if they wish to wear articles of clothing or jewelry on their person which are associated with their beliefs in religion.

Now, that's it ? Need to have it explained a bit slower ?
WE are obviously not the one in need of a becoming a bit more literate.
At least we're able to read a sentence in our own langage without reversing the meaning...

If you believe that your arguments are logical and coherent, do you think that theyre helped when you behave like a rude child?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
1. The wearing of religous symbols by private citizens is banned in state institutions.
2. Any private citizen that refuses to comply, and wears a religous symbol, will be barred from that institution.
conclusion: Religion is banned in state institutions.

False and twisted.

Following this "argument" :
- Several religions allows polygamy. Some others requires excision.
- Both polygamy and excision are forbidden in France.
=> France is banning religion.

That's absurd.
The reality is :

- State is separated from religion.
=> everything that is representative of the state must be free from any religious connotation.
=> you're not allowed to display any revendicative religious symbol while being in an official building.

I'm just astounded that so many people aren't able to make the conceptual distinction between the neutrality of the institution, and the freedom of though.

It's exactly like policemen : they have a "duty of being reserved", which means that, WHILE WEARING UNIFORM, they aren't allowed to criticize the political decisions made by the government. It does not mean they are forbidden to disagree with the government, it just mean they have to hide their personnal opinion while representing the state.

No. They are banned if they wish to wear articles of clothing or jewelry on their person which are associated with their beliefs in religion.

Just like someone who shout in a Mosque is thrown out. Or if you refuse to wear a uniform in the army you're thrown out.

If you believe that your arguments are logical and coherent, do you think that theyre helped when you behave like a rude child?

Not at all. But it just ease my blood pressure when someone who is not even able to get the adequate meaning of a sentence in his own language start to tell me arrogantly that his superior nation will come and literate my own.

 

[Speedo]

Ok Akka, I'll explain it in crayon for you.

There are more than two points on the scale we're talking about here. There are in fact three major ones.

At one end: Religion completely banned by the state.
Somewhere in the middle: Church and state seperate
At the opposite end: Religion completely banned by the state.

Now, you say,

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

Which I take to mean, "If we let them have religious symbols in our schools then they'll try to start shoving religion down our throats."

So I said,

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.

Which means, "It is exactly the same on this side; if we let them remove our freedom to display symbols of our religion, then they'll try to completely get rid of our religion."

If you can't understand that, well then to bad.

I'm not the one that started with talking about "literate you once we've done with Iraq". Don't complain if your own (misplaced) arrogance fires back.

If you can't understand a joke (even with a smilie there to help) it's not my problem.
And er, you might note the difference between liberate and literate.

So, are you going answer my earlier question? If wearing religious symbols equates to the state supporting that religion, then would not wearing the flag of another country show that the state supported that country? Should it not also be banned?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Akka
- State is separated from religion.
=> everything that is representative of the state must be free from any religious connotation.

Akka, I can only repeat the obvious. A private citizen who is attending a school is NOT a representative of the state.

It's exactly like policemen : they have a "duty of being reserved", which means that, WHILE WEARING UNIFORM, they aren't allowed to criticize the political decisions made by the government. It does not mean they are forbidden to disagree with the government, it just mean they have to hide their personnal opinion while representing the state.

Again, a police officer IS a representative of the state. He or she is employed by the state for the purposes of representing the state. A private citizen is NOT a representative of the state.

Or if you refuse to wear a uniform in the army you're thrown out.

And yet again, a soldier is employed by the state and is a representative of the state. A PRIVATE CITIZEN IS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Speedo
There are more than two points on the scale we're talking about here. There are in fact three major ones.

At one end: Religion completely banned by the state.
Somewhere in the middle: Church and state seperate
At the opposite end: Religion completely banned by the state.

That is the thing you fail to understand : separation of state and religion is not the middle point on the slider.
It's a point OUTSIDE the slider.
It's PRECISELY made to not mix things that has nothing to do between themselves, like political power to religion or spiritual power to the state.

Secularism in school aim at KEEPING THEM SEPARATED, which prevent as much the state from persecuting religion than religion to gain political power.

It's not a war of influence. It keeping both in their own domain. Like religion and science.

Which I take to mean, "If we let them have religious symbols in our schools then they'll try to start shoving religion down our throats."

Yes. Because if they refuse to accept the neutrality of state, it means they want to cow the state to their own religious belief, so they won't stop until religion is back on political power.

Which means, "It is exactly the same on this side; if we let them remove our freedom to display symbols of our religion, then they'll try to completely get rid of our religion."

No it's not the same, because the rules, the laws and the Constitution do not try to push back religion until the state take control of spirituality, they ONLY aim at keeping state and religion SEPARATED.
Again, it's not a war between state and religion over which one can get the most power, it's a line drawn to separate them.

So, are you going answer my earlier question? If wearing religious symbols equates to the state supporting that religion, then would not wearing the flag of another country show that the state supported that country? Should it not also be banned?

As all political signs, if it's revendicative, it will be banned.



Dumb Pothead :


Pupils aren't representatives of the state. But public school is. The institution is a part of the state. As such, it's forbidden to promote religion opinions in it. Pupils aren't forbidden to have religious opinions, they are forbidden to promote them INSIDE SCHOOL. School itself is a neutral ground.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by Akka

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

Did you consider the possibility that you are not all-knowing, and that your posts come short from answering what is debated here?

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.

Fighting the mills here. Christians are still allowed to bring certain symbols into the classrom, as long as they are not exaggerated.
Same goes for Jews - kippa hasn't been an issue for a long time now. Yet, when Muslims come into the picture, it is suddenly "forbidden" to wear almost anything religious.
If it is so hard on the eyes of French people to see a different culture, a different religion - maybe they shouldn't have opened their gates for such a wide immigration wave. Assimilation is a process that takes time - and secularism is the same. Forcing it will not due any good - it will just further antagonize the immigrants from mainstream society.

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.

And what about Kippas?

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

But the new law is targeting all religions. Do you have a problem with Kippas, or is it plain lip service?

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

You know it, because we know the differences are much more extreme now, and the size relative to the population is much bigger than before. It's okay to know. And I don't think dragging this conversation into the field of semantics will do any good to the subject.

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.

It is changing the law in effect, the specifics do not really matter to the argument itself. What is revendicative?

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.

So is it because it is "revendicative"(?), because it is religious or because it is missionary?

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.

So why the inclusion of the kippa then?

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.

What you feel doesn't matter, what matters are the facts at hand.
This immigration wave is much bigger and much different, and the "panic" effect that it is causing in both the government and social life, in addition to the rise of violence by the immigrants and on the immigrants indicates it is an immigration of different magnitude than modern France ever experienced.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Which is just as bad as embracing religion. Separate should mean "indiferent towards"

Thank you. I agree. You deserve a cookie.

Seems the French state is attempting to push a religion, the lack of religion.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Did you consider the possibility that you are not all-knowing, and that your posts come short from answering what is debated here?

Same here. Repeating again and again the same thing won't make your affirmation any more true.

Fighting the mills here. Christians are still allowed to bring certain symbols into the classrom, as long as they are not exaggerated.
Same goes for Jews - kippa hasn't been an issue for a long time now. Yet, when Muslims come into the picture, it is suddenly "forbidden" to wear almost anything religious.

And same goes for muslim. I think the debate is about the veil, and the problems in school are about the veil, and not about all the islamic symbols.

Well, you can find examples of people being expelled on non-exagerrated muslim symbols, if you're that much convinced that it's some sort of crusade to get rid of Islam. But it'll probably take a bit more of efforts from you than to just

If it is so hard on the eyes of French people to see a different culture, a different religion - maybe they shouldn't have opened their gates for such a wide immigration wave. Assimilation is a process that takes time - and secularism is the same. Forcing it will not due any good - it will just further antagonize the immigrants from mainstream society.

I said myself that assimilation takes time, thanks for repeating my words.
Forcing it ? Nothing is "forced". It's the laws of the country. By coming in France, they accept the laws of France. If they are upset by these laws, well then they just have to vote to change them, or to get out.

And what about Kippas?

Never saw one, never heard about people wearing them in public school. Either they don't, either they are discreet enough not to be considered a promoting of religion. What's with this obsession about the Kippas ? Are you shocked that there isn't actually trouble about jews in french schools ?

But the new law is targeting all religions. Do you have a problem with Kippas, or is it plain lip service?

I have a problem with anyone displaying openly his religious belief in a secular institution. There is actually NO problems with people displaying openly their religious belief in school EXCEPT for the veil.

You know it, because we know the differences are much more extreme now, and the size relative to the population is much bigger than before. It's okay to know. And I don't think dragging this conversation into the field of semantics will do any good to the subject.

It's not semantic, it's conceptual difference. I am still able to make the difference between what I feel and what I know.

It is changing the law in effect, the specifics do not really matter to the argument itself.

The law is the same. The veil is just OFFICIALLY CLASSIFIED as "promoting religious belief". For the tenth time.

What is revendicative?

Ah, crap, I thought it was the same word in english.
"revendiquer" means "to claim".

So is it because it is "revendicative"(?), because it is religious or because it is missionary?

Because it's "religieusement revendicatif" => promoting religion (and, alternatively, promoting the submission of women, which breaks another law of the country, which is the total equality of rights between men and women).

So why the inclusion of the kippa then?

Hu ?
Which inclusion of which kippa ?
You're the only one talking about it, you know...

What you feel doesn't matter, what matters are the facts at hand.
This immigration wave is much bigger and much different, and the "panic" effect that it is causing in both the government and social life, in addition to the rise of violence by the immigrants and on the immigrants indicates it is an immigration of different magnitude than modern France ever experienced.

That's possible, and even probable.
But at the risk of repeating myself : I have heard the exact same things said about the previous waves of immigration. Perhaps this one will be different, perhaps not. It's still too soon to say.

But if this feeling of panic was so high, WHY the borders aren't already closed ?

Seems the French state is attempting to push a religion, the lack of religion.

Atheism is considered a "religious belief" just as the others, and as such is not to be openly displayed in school either.

It must be the tenth times I say it, seems some people are selectively blind. Or that they have this little unability to understand the little concepts like "public" and "private", "state" and "personnal", "neutrality" and "active destruction".

 

[Marla_Singer]

I think most of people who are against the french law have fantasies about what we're talking about.

Of course ! After a century of secular public school, people are still free to believe ! And they do ! You'll still be free to wear on the neck a cross, a David's star or a Fatma's hand ! We won't make you eat pork by force if you don't want to ! lol !!

Moreover, Yom Kippur and Aïd al-Kebbir will be OFF-SCHOOL days ! France will be the first country in the world to have multiconfessional off-school days !!

However, ostentatious religious signs (just like advertisement) won't be able to enter inside school. However, banning advertisement from school doesn't mean you have to keep off your nikes from school ! Lol !

We're talking about kids ! Who in here is ready to say a kid thinks by himself ? Then how can you believe it's about banning an individual freedom ?? Is it banning an individual freedom to avoid kids to drive cars ? Is it banning an individual freedom to avoid kids to drink alcohol ? Is it banning an individual freedom to avoid kids to vote ?

It's just for public school ! Everywhere else they'll be free to wear the veil ! People are of course free to wear it in public universities ! Why ? because people are over 18 ! They think by themselves and we can definitly consider it comes from their own choice !