France has freedom of religion....oh wait - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 01-17-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Thousands Protest France Head-Scarf Ban

at Jan 17, 3:25 PM ET

By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - Waving the French flag or wearing it as a head scarf, thousands of Muslim women marched Saturday through Paris, the center of a worldwide protest against France's plan to ban veils from public schools.

From Baghdad and Beirut to London and Stockholm, protesters condemned the law as an attack on religious freedom. Even in the West Bank city of Nablus and in the summer capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir (news - web sites), Srinagar, women came out to support French Muslims.

"Where is France? Where is tolerance?" the crowd chanted during the four-hour march through Paris. "The veil is my choice."

The protesters want to scrap a bill that will go before French lawmakers next month forbidding "conspicuous" religious signs, from Islamic head scarves to Jewish skull caps and large Christian crosses, in public schools. Easy passage is expected, and the law is to become applicable with the new school year in September.

President Jacques Chirac says the aim is to protect the principle of secularism that anchors life in France. However, it also is seen as a way to hold back the swell of Islamic fundamentalism in France's Muslim community — the largest in Western Europe at an estimated 5 million.

Protesters, from small girls to women, formed a sea of color in fanciful scarves of all sizes in Paris. Bearded men, some in long robes, also joined in the Paris march. A small group set out a prayer mat and prayed.

"Faith is not conspicuous," said one of hundreds of banners. "Neither Fundamentalist nor Terrorist but Peaceful Citizen," read another.

Police said up to 10,000 people took part in the peaceful march in the French capital, while several thousand others protested in a half-dozen cities around the country.

Critics of the law claim it will stigmatize France's Muslims. French authorities contend the principle of secularism is meant to make everybody equal.

"I think it will make things worse," Kods Mejry, 18, said of the head scarf ban. "There will be no more integration."

Her blue, white and red scarf matching the French flag was meant "to show that we are French and Muslim and proud of it."

"Lots of girls will leave school. Others will take their scarves off," said Myriam Diaou, of the Union of Muslims of Trappes, southwest of Paris. "It will reinforce the sense of exclusion."

In London, 2,400 people demonstrated near the French Embassy in the upscale Knightsbridge area. Waving placards, they chanted: "If this is democracy, we say 'No, merci!'"

"The government is isolating Muslims and setting a dangerous precedent," said Ihtisham Hibatullah, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain.

Nearby, a small rival group of about 30 demonstrators expressed support for the French ban.

Britain's Foreign Office Minister Mike O'Brien said the British government supports the right to display religious symbols.

"In Britain, we are comfortable with the expression of religion, seen in the wearing of the hijab, crucifixes or the kippa," O'Brien said in a statement. "Integration does not require assimilation."

Across the Middle East, protesters denounced the French ban. The largest turnout was in the Lebanese capital of Beirut, where some 2,500 people marched. Smaller rallies drew up to 100 people each in the Jordanian capital of Amman, in Cairo and in Kuwait.

Some 300 Palestinian women protested in the West Bank city of Nablus.

"As a people who have been oppressed, we know what it means for others in the world who are denied their freedom," said Salam Ghazal, head of a local women's group.

In Iraq (news - web sites), an Islamic group distributed an open letter to Chirac in mosques that called on him to reverse his position, while dozens of male and female students demonstrated at Baghdad's Al Mustansiriya University.

In Stockholm, too, about 2,000 people marched to the French Embassy. A smaller group protested in Oslo.

The Party of Muslims of France, a small group known for its radical views, organized the Paris march. However, the huge Union of Islamic Organizations of France, a fundamentalist group, gave its blessing and encouraged people to take part.

"The next step is for the president to react before it's too late," said Mohamed Latreche, head of the Party of Muslims of France.

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.

Lebell · 01-17-2004, 03:37 PM

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.

onodrim · 01-17-2004, 03:52 PM

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

World's King · 01-17-2004, 03:55 PM

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

Lebell · 01-17-2004, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Original King
I thought the only freedom one had in France was the "Freedom to be Snooty."

You forgot the freedom to surrender.

World's King · 01-17-2004, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
You forgot the freedom to surrender.

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

Mehoni · 01-17-2004, 04:09 PM

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

Lebell · 01-17-2004, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mehoni
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

)

bermuDa · 01-17-2004, 04:18 PM

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

SecretMethod70 · 01-17-2004, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mehoni
Bahsing the frensch is so yesterday.. and not to mention stupid.

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

arch13 · 01-17-2004, 05:07 PM

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

) and christian crosses.

manalone · 01-17-2004, 06:11 PM

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?

SecretMethod70 · 01-17-2004, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by manalone
It applies to all conspicuous symbols of faith.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Lebell · 01-17-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by manalone
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?

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.

Mr.Deflok · 01-17-2004, 08:49 PM

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

phaedrus · 01-17-2004, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
This is flat out persecution of muslims as well as - to a lesser degree - Jews who wear yamakas, and Christians who wear crosses.

How is it to a lesser degree?

SecretMethod70 · 01-17-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
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

Prophecy · 01-17-2004, 09:50 PM

Quote:

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

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.

Fire · 01-17-2004, 10:14 PM

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?

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-17-2004, 10:59 PM

Secularism promotes social harmony

SecretMethod70 · 01-17-2004, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Secularism promotes social harmony

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."

Dragonlich · 01-18-2004, 01:00 AM

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.

Prophecy · 01-18-2004, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
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?

Dragonlich · 01-18-2004, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prophecy
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.

Mehoni · 01-18-2004, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
You are right.

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

(hey, you started it )

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?

ARTelevision · 01-18-2004, 07:50 AM

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...

Mehoni · 01-18-2004, 10:49 AM

Lebell · 01-18-2004, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mehoni
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?

Relax man,

I just funnin' ya

World's King · 01-18-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mehoni
Bahsing the frensch is so yesterday.. and not to mention stupid.

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

frensch?

Now, that's being snooty.

phaedrus · 01-18-2004, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
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

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.

SecretMethod70 · 01-18-2004, 11:31 AM

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."

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.

phaedrus · 01-18-2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
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."

Agreed on all points.

james t kirk · 01-18-2004, 02:03 PM

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.

SecretMethod70 · 01-18-2004, 02:13 PM

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.

Moskie · 01-18-2004, 02:27 PM

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.

omega2K4 · 01-18-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
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.

Word. I vote james t kirk for president.

SecretMethod70 · 01-18-2004, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moskie
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.

You mean following the US constitution just like it reads?

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What a concept

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

Moskie · 01-18-2004, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Religious anything is always trouble.

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!

SecretMethod70 · 01-18-2004, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moskie
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.

exactly.

Halx · 01-18-2004, 03:44 PM

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.

01-17-2004, 03:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	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. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-17-2004, 03:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
onodrim Cosmically Curious Location: Chicago, IL	Wow, that is awful. It is so sad that this kind of thing still happens in the world today. __________________ "The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides" -Carl Sagan

01-17-2004, 03:55 PM	#4 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	I thought the only freedom one had in France was the "Freedom to be Snooty." __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

01-17-2004, 04:09 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mehoni Insane Location: Within the Woods	Bahsing the frensch is so yesterday.. and not to mention stupid. __________________ There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

01-17-2004, 04:18 PM	#9 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	it's like telling morduchai to "take off that damned yamulke"... it's a gross violation of individual's religious rights. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

01-17-2004, 05:07 PM	#11 (permalink)
arch13 Loves my girl in thongs Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada	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 ) and christian crosses. __________________ Seen on an employer evaluation: "The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead" ____________________________ Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11. -Nanofever

01-17-2004, 06:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
manalone Once upon a time...	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? __________________ -- Man Alone ======= Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

01-17-2004, 08:49 PM	#15 (permalink)
Mr.Deflok Blood + Fire Location: New Zealand	Robed monks could be carrying rifles under the robes, or even little boys, let's ask France to ban robes.

01-17-2004, 10:14 PM	#19 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	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? __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

01-17-2004, 10:59 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Secularism promotes social harmony __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2004, 01:00 AM	#22 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	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.

01-18-2004, 07:50 AM	#26 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	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... __________________ create evolution

01-18-2004, 10:49 AM	#27 (permalink)
Mehoni Insane Location: Within the Woods	Heh. __________________ There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

01-18-2004, 11:31 AM	#31 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	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." 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. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-18-2004, 02:03 PM	#33 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	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.

01-18-2004, 02:13 PM	#34 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 01-18-2004 at 02:17 PM..

01-18-2004, 02:27 PM	#35 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	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. __________________ Greetings and salutations.

01-18-2004, 03:44 PM	#40 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	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. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]