France has freedom of religion....oh wait
 

I'm sorry but this is absolutely outrageous. Seperation of Church and State is a good thing, yes. But it is there for TWO purposes and the second is often forgotten. The first is so that the government does not show support for any particular religion and the SECOND is so that the government doesn't show any distaste for any religion as well. And the second is exactly what is happening here.

I don't buy all the BS reasons they give about "gym classes" and all that crap. This is flat out persecution of muslims as well as - to a lesser degree - Jews who wear yamakas, and Christians who wear crosses.

Despite all its problems (every government has them) I'm proud to live in a country where - at least relative to France apparently - I'm free to practice my religion however and where ever I see fit. I can personally pray in school if I want to - even if it's "conspicuous" so long as it's not done in a way that makes it appear supported by the public school. I can wear a cross around my neck if I want to - there just can't be any law passed saying people SHOULD wear them.

Apparently the French government is even more xenophobic than I thought. :rolleyes:

That is wrong.

Just. Plain. Wrong.

I can understand requiring a woman to remove for something like an ID photo, but to ban "'conspicuous' religious signs" in the name of secularism sounds like outright religious bigotry to me.

Wow, that is awful. It is so sad that this kind of thing still happens in the world today.

I thought the only freedom one had in France was the "Freedom to be Snooty."

You forgot the freedom to surrender.

Thanks man... I knew I was missing one.

Bahsing the frensch is so yesterday.. and not to mention stupid.

You are right.

So is, apparently, proof reading your posts and using proper spelling.

(hey, you started it :D)

it's like telling morduchai to "take off that damned yamulke"... it's a gross violation of individual's religious rights.

This is not French bashing in any way. This is abuse of human rights bashing and persecution of religious freedom bashing.

Interesting. this is the first time an artical has mentioned that it also applies to jewish male hats (sorry but i can't spell the real word:rolleyes: ) and christian crosses.

It applies to all conspicuous symbols of faith.

Does no one else notice the irony of "surrender" type quotes, alongside pleas for human rights or accusations of xenophobia?

Yes, I know, and whether it be religious persecution for a particular religion or blanket religious persecution, it's still persecution and the denial of people to freely practice their religion when it has no impact on the rights of others.

I do, and you'll notice I didn't make any surrender comment or anything. I also thought "freedom fries" was stupid. However, the French ARE being xenophobic - and you can see it in other instances too such as their government organization that prevents foreign words from entering their vocabulary. An organization which created a French word for e-mail because God-forbid an english word enter their language.

Xenophobia can be seen everywhere. Pointing out that the French government is acting xenophobic here and is notorious for acting as such doesn't imply that there are not xenophobes in America. There are. But it also doesn't change the fact that what the French are trying to do here is wrong.

Well, I must be slowing down with this cold, because I can't see it.

I agree 100% with SecretMethod that the French are Xenophobic, and I also think that they are hypocritical at criticizing the US and then doing things like this. (Of course, Iraq was about $$$ to the French).

The "surrender" dig just fit in context, it being my way of laughing at them.

If there is more there, you'll have to enlighten me.

Robed monks could be carrying rifles under the robes, or even little boys, let's ask France to ban robes.

How is it to a lesser degree?

Well, honestly, it isn't in practice. Only in intent. The impetus for this banning was muslims. That's all I meant by that.

Thanks for keeping me honest :)

If this law passes that might not be too far :(
I just think it's so shameful that any government would try to regulate religion.

I see only one soloution to this travesty- the United states, to protect the freedom and dignity of the french people, must invade france and abolish its tyranical regiem before it further degrades and abuses its people...

But seriously, this is a steaming crock of shit- and blatantly discriminatory against all religious people- I mean, WTF, if someone chooses to show their faith, without pushing it on others, how does this hurt people? an how can a government that claims to be obsessed with freedom support this idea?

Secularism promotes social harmony :thumbsup:

in government yes. forcing it on people however, no. I hope I don't have to suffer the consequences that will come from retailiations when people's religions are oppressed in the name of "secularism."

Well... In many European countries, as a government employee, you're not allowed to wear religious symbols in government buildings. This also applies to Muslim women, naturally. It's kinda similar to the whole US debate about Christian crosses or bible references in schools and courthouses.

The question would be: where do you draw the line? The French draw the line in schools. That's similar to Islamic Turkey, by the way, where head-scarfs are *also* banned. Would Turkey be persecuting Muslims too?

You may not like this law, but at least try to understand where it came from before labeling it racist. It might be interesting to note that not only France did this; some German states also banned head-scarfs. In fact, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands (amongst others) are thinking about following the French example.

In the case of my country, it started when some Muslim girls decided to wear a Chador (full face covered) in school. The same school where they were learning to become teachers. The school banned those things because they make it virtually impossible for teachers to communicate properly with these girls, with the lack of facial expressions and such.

Final note: head-scarfs are *NOT* manditory in Islam; some people interpret the Quran as saying they are, some interpret it as saying they're not.

Does that mean that those that interpret it as saying your supposed to wear head-scarfs are wrong?

No, it means they're interpreting it as saying what they want it to say. They're not wrong, but they're not right either. :)

Where did I start it? Did I comment on your spelling? English is not my first language, and I make a lot of spelling mistakes when I'm tired. So what?

It would be good to jack down the emotional level a notch here...

My two cents is just a personal observation. This thread makes me think about what a better world we'd have without religion. I don't know how we'll ever get there. I think secularization is a great idea but I think legislating it is usually too heavy handed. Perhaps the role of govenment in this evolution is best limited to promoting the benefits of secularization through dialog...

Heh.

Relax man,

I just funnin' ya :D

How you gonna tell me to not bash the French and not even spell it right?

frensch?


Now, that's being snooty.

No worries. Though you may be mistaken as to the intent. I was reading about this a month or so ago and according to Chirac it was motivated by increased racial conflict in France, primarily a lengthy series of anti-Semitic crimes, the intent was to try and keep those conflicts out of the school system. Not that I am saying it will work or is the right thing to do though. If fact, I would oppose the law, it seems a bit morally and logically unsound. You may be able to hide from persecution, but masking who you are does not protect you from persecution. Instead it makes you the victim in another way entirely.

As to the ethnocentrists who think it is the height of wit to mock the French, you should keep two things in mind: the first, what you are doing is completely devoid of originality and merit; the second, what you are doing is in all likelihood a violation of the TFP's charter.

Yes, I have heard that about the intent of this law. I have also heard that it's because they were getting angry about things such as Muslim schoolgirls not being able to participate in things like gym class because they would not take off their large headdresses. I'm not sure which one I believe because both explanations I have seen from people who are actually in the country.

If the intent is to prevent religious conflict, that's a pretty silly way of going about it. "Hi, you think you're religion is too important to hide just so you're not hated by some, so we're going to force you to hide it. It's for your own good. Really. It is." :rolleyes:

Re: art's comment. Perhaps that's true, but that's something that - if it is to be better - must come naturally and without interference of some government forcing it upon people.

Agreed on all points.

Actually, I agree 100% with this law.

I believe in the separation of church and state. You want to be religious, go to church / synogue / mosque.

Religious anything is always trouble.

No-one is telling them they can't practice their faith, just don't wave it in my face.

And i agree with that.

Um, a conservative jew is required to wear a skullcap on Sabbath. Some muslims believe they are required to wear a headdress. Telling them they cannot IS telling them they cannot practice their faith.

And, I'm sorry, but if you're offended just by SEEING someone wearing something pertaining to their religion and think that the mere presence of them wearing a religious symbol is "waving it in your face" - you've got some issues with religion that go beyond the respect of one's right to choose it for themself. I don't like drugs, but I don't think someone wearing a marijuana t-shirt is trying to get me to use drugs either.

Is it really that difficult for governments to implement laws that neither support nor repress religion?

It seems to me that if governments just stuck to the idea that no law shall deal with religion at all (whether it be support of faith-based initiatives, or banning of relgious garments in school), it would make issues like this go away.

Word. I vote james t kirk for president.

You mean following the US constitution just like it reads?

What a concept :rolleyes:

Granted, this is France not the US, but the US should pay attention to its own constitution sometimes too.

I believe the same thing... but I take that to mean that laws such as this one should *not* be passed, because it will only cause trouble.

p.s. hehe, thanks SM, shoulda quoted it myself!

exactly.

My opinion... this law is not a sharp, pointed object hurtling straight toward any religion. The AUTHOR of the ARTICLE puts the spin on it. He is using this article to make it look like a direct jab at the muslim religion. Thankfully, it is mentioned that all other religions will be affected.

One small step for French, one giant leap for secularism.

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.