Yes I'll agree the article spins it to make it look worse than it is, but it doesn't change the fact that it prohibits some people - from many different religions - from practicing their religion freely. That's hat the problem is here.

Secularism in government is a wonderful and noble goal to strive for, but secularism in government doesn't equate to prohibiting regular citizens from openly being religious. We're not talking about government workers here.

you may have a point there... and I agree that forcing others away from their religion will cause some ill feelings. However, schools are government-regulated institutions in France, are they not?

Don't know, but schools are government regulated in America and I knew plenty of people that came to my public high school with yamakas on their head or muslim headdresses. No one was offended by it and it was perfectly acceptable. It's just another form of free speech.

While were on the idea topic of government forced secularism and the beauty therein, I would like to remind you of two regimes in the last century that were rather fond of the idea... Stalin's Russia and Saddam's Iraq. Wearing overt religious symbols, what does that get you, a trip to the gulags. Saddam would do what he felt necessary to keep religious identity down, even death, because religion challenged his power. Not comparing whats going on in Europe to Russia or Iraq, but hey its got to start somewhere.

I love the French to death, but you cannot take seriously a culture that popularized the eating of garden snails.


wink



added 'wink'...

Mojo_PeiPei, I do take it as axiomatic that dictatorships of any stripe force the banishment of all points of view not directly aligned with officialdom. I don't see that amounting to a critique of secularism per se.

I think he meant government forced secularism specifically, not secularism in general.

SecretMethod70, I'm sure that's what was meant. I just didn't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater...

:)

A small semantics question...

Is there a difference between the word "secularism" and the words "banning of all religion"?

I've always thought that something is secular when it does not pertain to religion, but it seems that some people are using it here to mean the active banning of religion. There's a stark difference between those defintions for me, and I want to make sure I'm using the proper terms.

sec·u·lar·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-l-rzm)
n.
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

secularism

n : a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations

****
I don't know, that seems a like a little more then mere indifference.

Also I'm in no way comparing Chirac to Stalin or Saddam. But it all has to start somewhere. And it makes me wonder what he is going to do when people don't cooperate?

I hate the french. They are a bunch of bastards. Give the french and inch and they will run all over you.

We're americans its our duty to bash the french..after all thats what we expect of them.

What about the separate school they have for homosexuals somewhere up in New York, or around there?

I don't believe that religion and schools should be intertwined in any way. There are schools in which you have to wear a school uniform if you wish to attend. That, to me, is the other extreme.

I recently learned that in this country, the States, you can get arrested or fined for stopping by the side of the road to take a leak, or going skinny-dipping. Apparently both are considered public indecency or some bullshit like that. Because of my cultural background, I find nothing wrong with nudity, but veiled people I find unnerving.

That said, I don't believe it should be the government's job to dictate something like this. Individual schools could do it, if they choose to. They've already got a head start in the States what with separating gays into their own schools.

The "gays" seperated themselves in that situation.

Yeah...wonder why.