NationStates Jolt Archive

Religon in every aspect shape and form needs to be taken out of Public schools. "god" has no place in the halls of a school, the religous right are in to much power when i refuse to say god at school i get weird looks. It really pisses me off how close minded they are.

By banning the values of a certain religion, they are in effect enforcing their own values upon that religion. Secularism goes both ways - the religion cannot control the state, but neither can the state control the religion.

In government institutions they can. Their house, their rules. If they pass a law that forbids any and all exercise of religion in on government grounds, or even the whole territory of France except embassies, you either comply, face consequences or leave. You dont have to like the law, you can protest it, vote for another party at the next elections, emigrate or whatever. There is nothing that stops the legislative from passing laws.

You mentioned how the US system isnt oppressive. I asked about dress codes before, still no answer. Unwarranted searches. Still no answer. Camera surveillance. Still no answer. Smoking marijuana vs. religious freedom. Still no answer. Are you dodging me?
Let me add schools putting up "In God we trust" or "God Bless America" sign in the entrance halls, which is perfectly legal. Mandatory pledge of allegiance in some schools. Sorry, but there is the the other sort of freedom, not being force-fed beliefs, especially not to pliable young persons on learning grounds.

Religon in every aspect shape and form needs to be taken out of Public schools. "god" has no place in the halls of a school, the religous right are in to much power when i refuse to say god at school i get weird looks. It really pisses me off how close minded they are.

The irony is killing me here. Listen, the pupils are NOT government property. They ARE NOT the institution. God has no place in the INSTITUTION. A human being and an institution are two completely different things. I'm an atheist and what France is doing is atrocious, they're restricting the right to freedom of religion -- and guess what, you don't have to be conservative to be religious! OMG! :eek:

good god. you fucking dumbass americans who think france is idiotic and lame because of this law. deal with it! You are forcing muslims children in public schools to say the under god oath thingy. it's the same fucking deal. for fuck sakes.

edit : this wasn't directed against the neutral americans and the americans that don't care. and who support the law.

haha, ignorance is bliss. you don't have to say the pledge in america. I know I sure as hell don't.

How i hate it to be in the same camp as a troll... :rolleyes:

The irony is killing me here. Listen, the pupils are NOT government property. They ARE NOT the institution. God has no place in the INSTITUTION. A human being and an institution are two completely different things. I'm an atheist and what France is doing is atrocious, they're restricting the right to freedom of religion -- and guess what, you don't have to be conservative to be religious! OMG! :eek:Actually, in my opinion (very important as I'm french), freedom of religion is not that important. It is your value system (the anglo-saxon one) which states that freedom of religion is above everything. If freedom of religion conflicts with security, or teaching or anything, I take the other, anyday.
Sects are banned in France, because they spread ignorance. Nazism is banned as well.

You may not understand it, but look. What is freedom of speech? Does Ossama Ben Laden have a right to tell some people to go bomb themselves into a building? (after all, that's all he did, he did not do it himself, did him?).

The young pupils are easily influenced and I think it is wrong to expose them to religion, because I think religion is wrong and I think spreading knowledge is more important than freedom of religion.

In government institutions they can. Their house, their rules. If they pass a law that forbids any and all exercise of religion in on government grounds, or even the whole territory of France except embassies, you either comply, face consequences or leave. You dont have to like the law, you can protest it, vote for another party at the next elections, emigrate or whatever. There is nothing that stops the legislative from passing laws.

The fact that it is a law does not make it any less a violation of civil rights. Some countries have laws *requiring* a woman to cover her hair in public. These laws are just as bad - because they are forcing religion on a person. However, forcing them to give it up is just as bad. That is all I am saying.

You mentioned how the US system isnt oppressive. I asked about dress codes before, still no answer. Unwarranted searches. Still no answer. Camera surveillance. Still no answer. Smoking marijuana vs. religious freedom. Still no answer. Are you dodging me?

I missed your post. But either way, I didn't say that the US system isn't oppressive, I said that the US system does not forcibly remove religion from the individuals in the classroom. It was a very specific comment and in no way suggested that I agree with everything about the US system.

I am undecided on dress codes - I think they may have a place, but that place has to allow room for religion - and, in the US, it does.
Unwarranted searches - is it unwarranted when you are getting on a plane and you have to go through a metal detector? It's not like people walk in and start dumping stuff on the floor. They bring the dogs and the metal detectors in and go around the school, because they have reasonable cause to think they may find something illegal.
Camera surveillance, as long as it is in a public place, is not an invasion of privacy (unless it's in a public bathroom or something).
I know of no religion that requires smoking marijuana, but if there was - I would be for a law allowing it, with stipulations to keep them from driving while still on it, etc. (actually, I am for legalizing marijuana, but that is another discussion altogether).

Let me add schools putting up "In God we trust" or "God Bless America" sign in the entrance halls, which is perfectly legal. Mandatory pledge of allegiance in some schools. Sorry, but there is the the other sort of freedom, not being force-fed beliefs, especially not to pliable young persons on learning grounds.

Like I said, I don't agree with any government institution espousing religious beliefs - I am just as against these things as you are. There are no schools that truly have mandatory pledge of allegiance, and if there are, they are breaking the law.

Actually, in my opinion (very important as I'm french), freedom of religion is not that important. It is your value system (the anglo-saxon one) which states that freedom of religion is above everything. If freedom of religion conflicts with security, or teaching or anything, I take the other, anyday.
Sects are banned in France, because they spread ignorance. Nazism is banned as well.

I never said freedom of religion is above everything. I said it is above your wish to not be confronted with different ideals. If freedom of religion conflicts with the security of other people, it is obviously going to be put in a back seat - but all efforts to make a compromise should be made. As for teaching, if the little girl sitting next to you is wearing a different style of clothing from you, your ability to learn is in no way impaired.

You may not understand it, but look. What is freedom of speech? Does Ossama Ben Laden have a right to tell some people to go bomb themselves into a building? (after all, that's all he did, he did not do it himself, did him?).

No, freedom of speech ends where it harms another. Osama has the right to say that he thinks all infidels should die. He *does not* have the right to orchestrate attacks on civilians for this reason though.

The young pupils are easily influenced and I think it is wrong to expose them to religion, because I think religion is wrong and I think spreading knowledge is more important than freedom of religion.

You seriously misunderstand children if you think mere exposure to religion is going to convert them. But I do find it interesting that you are so intolerant of religion. I am a religious person - and I think atheism is wrong. However, I do not think that children should not be exposed to it (hell, my boyfriend is atheist, so when I have children they will definitely be exposed), because it is as valid a belief as mine. Children should be exposed to as many viewpoints as possible so that they can make up their own minds.

Do you really want all children to be mindless little clones that can't think for themselves? Why do you want children to learn facts, but not how to make decisions for themselves? If you don't expose children to different viewpoints, they are likely to either become intolerant adult assholes who think the other side is inferior, or to convert to that new belief without thinking much at the first time they hear it, just because they were never exposed as children. Neither of these would be a good idea.

I never said freedom of religion is above everything. I said it is above your wish to not be confronted with different ideals. If freedom of religion conflicts with the security of other people, it is obviously going to be put in a back seat - but all efforts to make a compromise should be made. As for teaching, if the little girl sitting next to you is wearing a different style of clothing from you, your ability to learn is in no way impaired.
Ok, but I think your ability to learn is impaired if you wear extremist religious clothing, because the pupils are influenced by their clothes and they tend to think they are part of a tribe when they wear those clothes, instead of opening themselves to the world.

You seriously misunderstand children if you think mere exposure to religion is going to convert them. But I do find it interesting that you are so intolerant of religion. I am a religious person - and I think atheism is wrong. However, I do not think that children should not be exposed to it (hell, my boyfriend is atheist, so when I have children they will definitely be exposed), because it is as valid a belief as mine. Children should be exposed to as many viewpoints as possible so that they can make up their own minds. But religion is inferior to science because it is not experimented.

Do you really want all children to be mindless little clones that can't think for themselves? Why do you want children to learn facts, but not how to make decisions for themselves? If you don't expose children to different viewpoints, they are likely to either become intolerant adult assholes who think the other side is inferior, or to convert to that new belief without thinking much at the first time they hear it, just because they were never exposed as children. Neither of these would be a good idea.
But if it is the truth that the religion is inferior it should not be hidden from them.

Of course I have heard what intolerant Muslims say. But they are just that, intolerant Muslims. Do you think the way to convince them otherwise is to turn around and sterotype them? If a Muslim thinks I am an "evil Christian capitalist," should my response be "Whatever turban head, we bombed your country!"? Or should it be to try and understand their point of view and try to prevent it from spreading by demonstrating my respect for their religion?.
There are people where it is impossible to talk to. And with those it is not possible to have negotiations with. I´m not able to accept it: and if islamic countries don´t pull themselfs together I´m actually afraid for them. Because the US is not having patience with them any more. And I completly understand their position. Playing a double-game and secretly suppporting terrorism and the production of WMD is a thing the US is not going to tolerate anymore. Iraq was a warning shot for that. I understand this strategy however it is a very risky one. But it is of course your choice and I respect the decision of the US which is the most important country of the world.



A law that protects a child from being abused for not wearing a head scarf protects the child. One that prevents them from wearing it of their own volition does not..
Probably we have to assume that up to a certain age it can´t be seen as their individual choice. After all: we also have a protection age for sexual intercourse, for making legally binding contracts, for being responsible for criminal action, e.g. So it completly makes sense to have it in this field as well.

I think that this is an attack on civil liberties. I support the secular state, but people have the right to wear whatever clothes they want. Not all people who wear overt religious symbols are crazed fundamentalists.

America is also supposed to be the land of liberty, but where is HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

That's what I thought.

It's the land of liberty, but only for a select few.
France doesn't allow gay marriage either.

No, freedom of speech ends where it harms another. Osama has the right to say that he thinks all infidels should die. He *does not* have the right to orchestrate attacks on civilians for this reason though..
My godness: Do you think that those words have no effect. Should it be tolerated that islamic Imams preach intolerance, hate and death to the infidels. Do you think it has no effect? Should it be tolerated that people deny the Holocaust?
I don´t think so: there are limits to free speech. And that are insults, that is hate-speech and that are speeches who are bringing the peaceful coexistence of different peoples in danger.
Tolerance is good but not against the intolerant. I for example think it would have been right if Germany had banned the NSDAP.
And I though it was right to ban a simular party in 1952 and the Communists party (who was controlled by Moscow) in 1956.
To what tolerance of the intolerance could lead you can see in the history of many nations. They may take over them once if no clear line is shown.
I think that many muslim nations have failed to do so (Turkey is an exception to that - Algeria has also shown a line against them at the end of the day). And that makes this radicals more dangerous because they could legally act, the could spread their propaganda freely and they could mobilise supporters openly). And in that sense I agree with President Bush that countries of this region have to make a choice: Either you with us or you are with the terrorists. They shouldn´t play a double-game stating support against terror while actually tolerating it, allowing hate-speech and the funding of terror organisations.



You seriously misunderstand children if you think mere exposure to religion is going to convert them. But I do find it interesting that you are so intolerant of religion. I am a religious person - and I think atheism is wrong. However, I do not think that children should not be exposed to it (hell, my boyfriend is atheist, so when I have children they will definitely be exposed), because it is as valid a belief as mine. Children should be exposed to as many viewpoints as possible so that they can make up their own minds. .
Aren´t you homosexual?
So: how is that in accordance with your religion?
After all christianity condems homosexuality just like judaism and islam.
How can you support gay marriage regardless of that.
Or do you have a divided personality? (multiple personality?)

I think that this is an attack on civil liberties. I support the secular state, but people have the right to wear whatever clothes they want. Not all people who wear overt religious symbols are crazed fundamentalists.


France doesn't allow gay marriage either.It's called the PAX. It is the equivalent of marriage but it sounds less religious. This has been called like this so as to appear harmless to the religious wackos.

And indeed it is an attack on civil liberties, just like banning the swatsika or the nazi party is an attack on political freedoms. I'm all for it.

I think it's high time we stop tolerating the religious wackos. They are a destabilization force and their number is on the increase on all fronts (from the christians to the muslims and the zionists).

Actually, in my opinion (very important as I'm french), freedom of religion is not that important. It is your value system (the anglo-saxon one) which states that freedom of religion is above everything. If freedom of religion conflicts with security, or teaching or anything, I take the other, anyday.
Sects are banned in France, because they spread ignorance. Nazism is banned as well.


Oh, so it's your right to tell people what's important to them, eh? Thought suppression and censorship also spread ignorance.

You may not understand it, but look. What is freedom of speech? Does Ossama Ben Laden have a right to tell some people to go bomb themselves into a building? (after all, that's all he did, he did not do it himself, did him?).

Osama is also the head of a KNOWN terrorist organization. There's a difference between telling someone to bomb something and heading the organization that does it. Besides, that would be conspiracy to murder which is different. Being a Nazi does not make you a murderer if you do not go out and say "I'M GOING TO KILL A JEW TODAY!"

The young pupils are easily influenced and I think it is wrong to expose them to religion, because I think religion is wrong and I think spreading knowledge is more important than freedom of religion.

So your opinion is more important than someone else? Why don't you let the students decide what they want instead of deciding for them? And does it ever occur to you that religion can spread knowledge? OH right, stereotypes. My bad. And you talk about ignorance. :rolleyes:

What the americans who answered in this thread fail to realise is that those who want to wear the scarf in school are extremist who are known for making threats and attacking jew (for example). Is France to let extremist muslim dictate their politics in matter such as education?

Also, if a girl wear a burqua, how can the teacher be certain that it is really the correct girl who's taking the exam? After all, you only see the eyes.

Seems like a rash generalisation. Nevertheless, it's still an attack on the freedom of religion... just because the only people with the guts to question it are "extremists" doesn't make it any more right..

Oh, so it's your right to tell people what's important to them, eh? Thought suppression and censorship also spread ignorance.Yes it's called education. Either the state educates the children or the parents do. In your opinion the parents do a better job than the state. In my opinion, it's not every time the case.
But in either case, we'll have to tell the children what's important. You can call that brain-washing, I call that education and it is necessary.

Osama is also the head of a KNOWN terrorist organization. There's a difference between telling someone to bomb something and heading the organization that does it. Besides, that would be conspiracy to murder which is different. Being a Nazi does not make you a murderer if you do not go out and say "I'M GOING TO KILL A JEW TODAY!"
There is a line to draw indeed, but you can't just tell that everybody can choose his path and do whatever the fuck he wants. Female genital mutilation is not ok, scarf in school is not ok and big cross in school is not ok.
Do you think the children choose to have female genital mutilation or to wear the scarf? If so, you are ignorant of the reality.

So your opinion is more important than someone else? Why don't you let the students decide what they want instead of deciding for them? And does it ever occur to you that religion can spread knowledge? OH right, stereotypes. My bad. And you talk about ignorance. :rolleyes:
Because the students are not mature enough. Do you think that students decide if they can learn to write or not, or if they can learn that adam ans eve were the first humans? No. They learn what we decide they learn or they will stay uncivilized all their life. If you don't teach them to write or to count, they will stay ignorant. They don't choose what they learn. They learn what they have to learn. That is harming their freedom but it gives them some chance in life. If you really care about the children, you want them to know and to be educated. You don't want them to learn that coca cola is good for their health.

And no religion does not spread knowledge. Religion does spread some wild guesses. Science is experimented. Religion is not. Religion is archaic and is not needed anymore.
Jesus who separate the seas and who multiplies bread. Oh yeah and he walks on the water as well. Bullshit. Jesus is more heavy than the water. Jesus is going to get into trouble if he tries to walk on the water. Anyone who says Jesus is walking on the water is telling either bullshit or lies and spreading ignorance. This is true for any religion.
I don't want my children to go on crusade out of ignorance. We have evolved since Jesus is dead (he never came back, he is dead and dead means that he is dead). I'm sorry but religion is dangerous.

Seems like a rash generalisation. Nevertheless, it's still an attack on the freedom of religion... just because the only people with the guts to question it are "extremists" doesn't make it any more right..You see only the attack on freedom of religion. For me, this is a non-issue.
What this law does is teaching the children that they are children, not the people elected by god to rule over the world. When they are in school, they learn that they are children before being muslims, jews or whatever.
We don't want communities fighting each other in France. You may enjoy it in Saudi Arabia, or in Israel, or even in the US, but in France, we want people to be human before being a part of their little ridiculous religion. And that's what we teach in school.

But the school isn't teaching them anything about religion! They're just wearing something of religious importance!

Honestly, when I see someone where the crucifix at my school I don't go "UH-OH TIME TO CONVERT!!"

But the school isn't teaching them anything about religion! They're just wearing something of religious importance!

Honestly, when I see someone where the crucifix at my school I don't go "UH-OH TIME TO CONVERT!!"

Then the crucifix is obviously not big enough. ;)

Ok, but I think your ability to learn is impaired if you wear extremist religious clothing, because the pupils are influenced by their clothes and they tend to think they are part of a tribe when they wear those clothes, instead of opening themselves to the world.

That is a stereotype and you know it. Obviously, people have a tendency to associate with like-minded groups and children are not exempt from this. However, those I know who have worn head scarves may hang out with others of their religion more often, but do not try to completely separate themselves from everyone else. If you force them to not wear it, they are going to become even more of a separate group, because being naked around other people who also feel naked will be much easier for them.

But religion is inferior to science because it is not experimented.

(a) They are two different things and can easily coexist.

(b) We weren't comparing science and religion - we were comparing atheism and religion. Atheism and science are not equivalent and atheism is just as much of an arbitrary choice as religion.

But if it is the truth that the religion is inferior it should not be hidden from them.

As soon as you scientifically prove that there is no god (which cannot be done), then you can make the claim that all religion is inferior to atheism. Go ahead, prove it.


My godness: Do you think that those words have no effect. Should it be tolerated that islamic Imams preach intolerance, hate and death to the infidels. Do you think it has no effect? Should it be tolerated that people deny the Holocaust?

Of course it has an effect. But if it does not directly harm someone, it is free speech. People the deny the Holocaust - most of us know that they are idiots, but they are free to believe what they want.

Aren´t you homosexual?
So: how is that in accordance with your religion?
After all christianity condems homosexuality just like judaism and islam.
How can you support gay marriage regardless of that.
Or do you have a divided personality? (multiple personality?)

This is off topic, but I'll answer anyways. No, I am not homosexual. Some versions of Christianity condemn homosexuality, mine does not. Even if it did, I would still support *civil* homosexual marriages because civil marriages are a legal document that should be given equally to people of all types.

I think it's high time we stop tolerating the religious wackos. They are a destabilization force and their number is on the increase on all fronts (from the christians to the muslims and the zionists).

By that very quote you have made yourselves no better than a religious extremist. Militant atheism is no better than militant reliigon. Besides, by "not tolerating them anymore," you will increase their numbers.

If you don't teach them to write or to count, they will stay ignorant. They don't choose what they learn. They learn what they have to learn. That is harming their freedom but it gives them some chance in life. If you really care about the children, you want them to know and to be educated. You don't want them to learn that coca cola is good for their health.

And yet the fact remains, rote memorization is not learning. In order to teach the children to actually think, you must give them options to chose between. Children need to be exposed to many different viewpoints so that they can learn to make decisions for themselves. You may feel comfortable that you know everything and what is best for everybody, but the fact that you disagree with an idea does not make it wrong.

And no religion does not spread knowledge. Religion does spread some wild guesses. Science is experimented. Religion is not. Religion is archaic and is not needed anymore.

As a scientist who is also religious, I can vouch for the fact that both, if treated properly, spread knowledge. The types of knowledge, however, are very different. And a militant atheist like you would not understand them. Of course, to be a true scientist, one must admit the possibility of gods, as their existence has not been disproven.

Jesus who separate the seas and who multiplies bread. Oh yeah and he walks on the water as well. Bullshit. Jesus is more heavy than the water. Jesus is going to get into trouble if he tries to walk on the water. Anyone who says Jesus is walking on the water is telling either bullshit or lies and spreading ignorance. This is true for any religion.

Actually, people can walk on the dead sea, so it's not all that far-fetched a claim, now is it? But that is beside the point.

I don't want my children to go on crusade out of ignorance. We have evolved since Jesus is dead (he never came back, he is dead and dead means that he is dead). I'm sorry but religion is dangerous.

You also obviously don't want your children to think for themselves, much like many religious fundies. You have proven yourself no better than any other fundamentalist by this attitude.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Homogenization is the best way to ensure freedom!
[/dumbass]

The fastest growing ethnic/religious group in France is arab/muslim. This new/old law is an attempt to stem that tide. While the law is broader than just covering muslim headgear, it is aimed at them. The "everyone is being equally opressed" argument is bull. It's still oppression.

Let set something straight. Believing there is a god does not mean believing in a religion.
Believing in a god is OK, as a philosophical belief. You can read Pascal, he explain why believing in god, there is no problem in that and you know what, this is teached in school.

The problem is when you tell the children "Jesus is the prophet, the bible is the supreme law, above the human law and all that crap". A religion is that.
There may be a god or there may not be a god, but sure as hell (well bad expression sorry) god never said you have to wear a cricifix or a scarf or a pentagram. He never said that because god doesn't speak to us. If one is pretending to speak to god, let him bring the evidence. Until then, I'll take science over religion to find if god exist or not and I'll teach my children that god may or may not exist but that we don't know. Then they can make up their own mind. This is science. Religion is telling them that they are muslims or christian and that they are god children and that they have to believe in their faith because they are born christians or muslims.
I'm sorry but this is bullshit.

I want my children to have a real education, and I can't tolerate the parents who spread ignorance on the children. Every children has the right to the same chance in life, they have the right to know.

AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT TEACHING RELIGION. WEARING A SCARF DOES NOT TEACH RELIGION.

Christ's sake. You wanna ban going to church because some people may feel "offended" by the Church's presence? WEARING A SCARF DOES NOT SPREAD RELIGION. It is a personal thing; keep the government out of it!

AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT TEACHING RELIGION. WEARING A SCARF DOES NOT TEACH RELIGION.

Christ's sake. You wanna ban going to church because some people may feel "offended" by the Church's presence? WEARING A SCARF DOES NOT SPREAD RELIGION. It is a personal thing; keep the government out of it!

I don't think many people think they are teaching religion.
They are however likely to cause themselves and therefore other members of the class to be treated differently, which does not foster equality in education.
They are absolutely free to practise their religion outside of the school.

America is also supposed to be the land of liberty, but where is HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

That's what I thought.

It's the land of liberty, but only for a select few.

Wow, that is weird.

What about animal sex? How about incest?

I am not say anyone of the three types of sex acts mentioned are either right or wrong, I am saying it is moronic to equate these things with freedom.

Poligamy is illegal, does that mean Americans do not live in a free society?

Marrying + having sex with my dog is illegal, does that mean we do not live in a free society?

Its illegal for me to kill a person who wants to die, does that mean we dont live in a free society?

edit: I cant drive over a certain speed, does that mean we dont live in a free society?

Should I go on or maybe you want to consider refining your argument.

I don't think many people think they are teaching religion.
They are however likely to cause themselves and therefore other members of the class to be treated differently, which does not foster equality in education.
They are absolutely free to practise their religion outside of the school.

Not likely. What makes the difference in school or in public? You guys are really bordering on the secular/"I hate religion and so should everyone else" border. If someone's black, they may be treated differently, should we segregate schools??

Not likely. What makes the difference in school or in public? You guys are really bordering on the secular/"I hate religion and so should everyone else" border. If someone's black, they may be treated differently, should we segregate schools??
This is a foolish comparison, because religion is a choice. The colour of one's skin is NOT. Besides, they're not saying that all Christians have to go to a Christian school, nor all Moslems to a school that caters to only Moslems. So why bring up separating people because of their colour?

Nevertheless, they could be teased by kids. What's the difference if they're outcasted for skin other than religion if it's just as severe?

This is a foolish comparison, because religion is a choice. The colour of one's skin is NOT. Besides, they're not saying that all Christians have to go to a Christian school, nor all Moslems to a school that caters to only Moslems. So why bring up separating people because of their colour?

Ok, suppose that I didn't like pants and thought they were "boy's clothes" and that I wanted to only wear "girl's clothes (I felt this way when I was a kid, so this could apply). I *chose* to wear skirts every single day instead of pants or shorts because I wanted to. I got made fun of for it, but no one ever tried to tell me that I couldn't wear them. And when asked why, I told them it was because I am a girl.

This situation is similar, except for the fact that I did not feel naked or exposed when wearing pants, I just didn't like it. It is much more extreme to tell an orthodox Muslim girl that she cannot wear the scarf. If she is allowed to wear it, the same thing ensues. She may be made fun of for it, but if anyone asks why she wears it, she simply says she is Muslim and that she has to wear it. End of story. No one's ability to learn is impeded and kids find out that some people have different viewpoints and traditions.

Nevertheless, they could be teased by kids. What's the difference if they're outcasted for skin other than religion if it's just as severe?
Hm... you have a point there. Still, they can choose not to wear those signs of religious affiliation (and thusly avoid persecution—or should I say, mockery), whereas a person with a different colour than the one who is doing the mocking cannot help their choice. The only difference is that the person can choose to hide their religion (I'm not exactly "in-the-know" of what any religion requires any follower to wear, so I do not know if those head-items are required to be worn or not), though a person of different colour cannot hide their colour.

AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT TEACHING RELIGION. WEARING A SCARF DOES NOT TEACH RELIGION.

Christ's sake. You wanna ban going to church because some people may feel "offended" by the Church's presence? WEARING A SCARF DOES NOT SPREAD RELIGION. It is a personal thing; keep the government out of it!
I did not say they were teaching religion. I said their parents were teaching religion to them.
They should be given the chance to learn that they can be just children and that wearing the scarf is bullshit, free of the pressure of their parents. That's what I meant to say.

Wow, that is weird.

What about animal sex? How about incest?

I am not say anyone of the three types of sex acts mentioned are either right or wrong, I am saying it is moronic to equate these things with freedom.

Poligamy is illegal, does that mean Americans do not live in a free society?

Marrying + having sex with my dog is illegal, does that mean we do not live in a free society?

Its illegal for me to kill a person who wants to die, does that mean we dont live in a free society?

edit: I cant drive over a certain speed, does that mean we dont live in a free society?

Should I go on or maybe you want to consider refining your argument.
I would like to add this one :

It is illegal to display religious and political symbols in school. Does that mean we're not in a free society? NO, hell NO.

I think anglo-saxons are more sensible about religion. They have no problem limiting the speed on the roads but DON'T TOUCH RELIGION.
In France, we are less sensible about it. We consider religion to be dangerous, just as driving above the speed limit or as snorting cocaïn.
I hope we can understand each other.

Not likely. What makes the difference in school or in public? You guys are really bordering on the secular/"I hate religion and so should everyone else" border. If someone's black, they may be treated differently, should we segregate schools??Of course not. blacks are the same as white. They should be given a secular education just like everybody else.

Ok, suppose that I didn't like pants and thought they were "boy's clothes" and that I wanted to only wear "girl's clothes (I felt this way when I was a kid, so this could apply). I *chose* to wear skirts every single day instead of pants or shorts because I wanted to. I got made fun of for it, but no one ever tried to tell me that I couldn't wear them. And when asked why, I told them it was because I am a girl.

This situation is similar, except for the fact that I did not feel naked or exposed when wearing pants, I just didn't like it. It is much more extreme to tell an orthodox Muslim girl that she cannot wear the scarf. If she is allowed to wear it, the same thing ensues. She may be made fun of for it, but if anyone asks why she wears it, she simply says she is Muslim and that she has to wear it. End of story. No one's ability to learn is impeded and kids find out that some people have different viewpoints and traditions.When I was a little boy, I wanted to wear a big swatsika and I wanted to have a tatoo, saying "just kill the filthy jewish pigs". Now I'm glad the secular school did kick this shit out of my head. They forced me to wear normal clothes and I stopped believing I was part of a nazi gang when I realized I was just like the rest of the children.

When I was a little boy, I wanted to wear a big swatsika and I wanted to have a tatoo, saying "just kill the filthy jewish pigs". Now I'm glad the secular school did kick this shit out of my head. They forced me to wear normal clothes and I stopped believing I was part of a nazi gang when I realized I was just like the rest of the children.

So now you are comparing all religions to Naziism? Seriously, militant atheism has no more of a place in society than religious fundamentalism. Besides, your belief that you wanted to kill people of a particular faith did not *require* you to wear a swastika. A girl who feels she must cover her head to be modest is (a) not harming anyone else and (b) going to feel much more comfortable in school.

So now you are comparing all religions to Naziism? Seriously, militant atheism has no more of a place in society than religious fundamentalism. Besides, your belief that you wanted to kill people of a particular faith did not *require* you to wear a swastika. A girl who feels she must cover her head to be modest is (a) not harming anyone else and (b) going to feel much more comfortable in school.
She's harming herself.

She's harming herself.

No, she isn't. You only believe she is because you have the erroneous belief that all religion harms people.

No, she isn't. You only believe she is because you have the erroneous belief that all religion harms people.No I don't think religion harms people, but I think that when you push it to the point where you have to wear stuff saying you're part of this little group, then you have a problem.

But that has nothing to do with the validity of this law! You're running out of reasons, man. You're taking anti-religion reasons to try and justify something as secular.

Of course not. blacks are the same as white. They should be given a secular education just like everybody else.

so a black should be suceptible to unfair treatment but someone wearing a burka shouldn't? there's holes in your argument. no one said for the school to teach religion; you aren't teaching anything when you wear a burka or a crucifix -- keep the government out of people's personal lives!

But that has nothing to do with the validity of this law! You're running out of reasons, man. You're taking anti-religion reasons to try and justify something as secular.
Those are my personnal reasons to support this law.
I'm not sure what secular mean BTW. In french, we have this word "laïcité". I don't know it it means the same thing.
I think laïcité is something which is won and that if society tolerates religion too much, it becomes religious at one point, when ignorance overwhelms knowledge.

So because you dislike religion, everyone else should too? If you don't want your kid to wear religious symbols to school, then don't let them! If you're paranoid and don't want them to see religious symbols at all (eg, censor them), then dont send them to school -- however, you have no right infringing others' freedoms. None of your freedoms are being encroached with this law, are they now?

Because something offends you doesnt mean it should be banned. :rolleyes:

No I don't think religion harms people, but I think that when you push it to the point where you have to wear stuff saying you're part of this little group, then you have a problem.

You have already said in a previous post that religion itself is harmful, don't go back on that now.

As for, "you have to wear stuff," there are many social structures that dictate what you should or shouldn't wear. A policeman has a uniform to show that he is a policeman. A prostitute will usually show lots of skin to show that she is "available." And an orthodox Muslim girl feels comfortable covering as much of herself as possible because that is how she feels modestly dressed. There is nothing wrong with this.

in canada, there have been issued with sikh boys wanting to carry ceremonital daggars with them to school.
since that's part of their religion, should we allow them to carry weapons around? or should we consider the safetly of the other students and ban them?

hats were banned in my school except for religious headgear too. you would be surprised how many kids discovered religion that year...

personally i don't see anything wrong with the french law.

So because you dislike religion, everyone else should too? If you don't want your kid to wear religious symbols to school, then don't let them! If you're paranoid and don't want them to see religious symbols at all (eg, censor them), then dont send them to school -- however, you have no right infringing others' freedoms. None of your freedoms are being encroached with this law, are they now?

Because something offends you doesnt mean it should be banned. :rolleyes:
The problem here is that it offends more than 70% of the population.

I think laïcité is something which is won and that if society tolerates religion too much, it becomes religious at one point, when ignorance overwhelms knowledge.

That's a load of bullshit and it's irrelevant to secularism. Anything else you'd like to censor from the public so you can lead your little "knowledge" (although, censoring people from the intricacies of religion does seem to promote ignornance of the world, but whatever..) crusade?

You have already said in a previous post that religion itself is harmful, don't go back on that now.

As for, "you have to wear stuff," there are many social structures that dictate what you should or shouldn't wear. A policeman has a uniform to show that he is a policeman. A prostitute will usually show lots of skin to show that she is "available." And an orthodox Muslim girl feels comfortable covering as much of herself as possible because that is how she feels modestly dressed. There is nothing wrong with this.But she is 8!

in canada, there have been issued with sikh boys wanting to carry ceremonital daggars with them to school.
since that's part of their religion, should we allow them to carry weapons around? or should we consider the safetly of the other students and ban them?

hats were banned in my school except for religious headgear too. you would be surprised how many kids discovered religion that year...

personally i don't see anything wrong with the french law.

Burkas, crucifixes, yamulkas do not hurt or endanger anyone. It's a faulty comparison.

Banning hats is also an attack on freedom of expression.. it's not the school's job to decide what's moral or appropriate -- it's the parents' or child's personal RESPONSIBILITY.

But she is 8!

I was very modest when I was 8, what is your point exactly?

Besides, very few 8 year olds wear the scarf. As I understand it, it is usually when a girl hits puberty (ie. gets her first period) that she begins wearing it.

That's a load of bullshit and it's irrelevant to secularism. Anything else you'd like to censor from the public so you can lead your little "knowledge" (although, censoring people from the intricacies of religion does seem to promote ignornance of the world, but whatever..) crusade?Do you think we should allow porn for children?

I was very modest when I was 8, what is your point exactly?

Besides, very few 8 year olds wear the scarf. As I understand it, it is usually when a girl hits puberty (ie. gets her first period) that she begins wearing it.
No many 8 year old children wear the scarf.

The problem here is that it offends more than 70% of the population.

Ahh, fuck the minority then. They have no rights in this grand democracy. Most Americans are against gay marriage -- doesn't mean we should keep it illegal.

Burkas, crucifixes, yamulkas do not hurt or endanger anyone. It's a faulty comparison.

Banning hats is also an attack on freedom of expression.. it's not the school's job to decide what's moral or appropriate -- it's the parents' or child's personal RESPONSIBILITY.

according to my old highschool, hats endangered people, jackets too. that's why we were banned from wearing them on school property.

a headscarf is like a big hat in a way, only with more coverage.

and again, a lot of kids who never wore religious headgear started to do so after the no-hat rule came into place.

The problem here is that it offends more than 70% of the population.

Irrelevant. If it offended 99.9% of the population, nothing would give them the right to force their beliefs on the 0.1% of the population that wasn't harming anyone.

Burkas, crucifixes, yamulkas do not hurt or endanger anyone. It's a faulty comparison.

Banning hats is also an attack on freedom of expression.. it's not the school's job to decide what's moral or appropriate -- it's the parents' or child's personal RESPONSIBILITY.And what if parents want genital mutilation for their girl?

Do you think we should allow porn for children?

Porn as allowing them to view it or star in it? Starring in it would statutory rape.

Ahh, fuck the minority then. They have no rights in this grand democracy. Most Americans are against gay marriage -- doesn't mean we should keep it illegal.

yeah, what i never get is how americans get so pissed off about other countries not doing things to make their minorites equal and claim that they're oppressing them, while they do the exact same thing and try to justify it.

And what if parents want genital mutilation for their girl?

Are you trying to compare wearing a burka to genital mutilation? If the girl consents.. again, if the girl doesn't want to wear the burka she could tell her parents, "Fuck you." This law violates the rights of those who want to freely express themselves.

Irrelevant. If it offended 99.9% of the population, nothing would give them the right to force their beliefs on the 0.1% of the population that wasn't harming anyone.So the parents can force their belief and you have nothing to say about it? So the child is the property of the parents? So if a father rapes his daughter, we have no right to force our belief on him?

yeah, what i never get is how americans get so pissed off about other countries not doing things to make their minorites equal and claim that they're oppressing them, while they do the exact same thing and try to justify it.

But I want gay marriage legal... ie, I support the rights of the minorities.

yeah, what i never get is how americans get so pissed off about other countries not doing things to make their minorites equal and claim that they're oppressing them, while they do the exact same thing and try to justify it.

You are sterotyping. I do all I can to make the minorities here equal as well. Injustice is injustice - where it is has no bearing.

Porn as allowing them to view it or star in it? Starring in it would statutory rape.
What if they agree to do it?

So the parents can force their belief and you have nothing to say about it? So the child is the property of the parents? So if a father rapes his daughter, we have no right to force our belief on him?

Rape is a crime. A religion is not.

And is the child the property of the government to mold into a "model citizen?"

So the parents can force their belief and you have nothing to say about it? So the child is the property of the parents? So if a father rapes his daughter, we have no right to force our belief on him?

I know you are French and all, but do you read English???? I said NOT HAMRING ANYONE. Last time I checked, rape is pretty harmful.

But I want gay marriage legal... ie, I support the rights of the minorities.Do you support marriage for 8 year old children?

What if they agree to do it?

It's still statuory rape -- if they're 10 years old, I doubt they'd do it because they haven't even hit puberty head on to want to have sex or pose nude. If they're 16 or 17 then it could be different.

Rape is a crime. A religion is not.

And is the child the property of the government to mold into a "model citizen?"
yes

Do you support marriage for 8 year old children?

Gays are two consenting adults. I highly doubt an 8-year-old child would want to get married or have any sexual thoughts. Be reasonable now.

ok, well there are a lot of americans who sit there and go on about how abhorrent this is, that the muslims are beign oppressed over there and then they go and oppress gay people.

i know it's not all americans. just yesterday i heard some girl bitching about the canadian seal hunt. if we didn't have american boats fishing in our damn water illegally, we could probably control the amount of fish that gets fished a lot easier... thus eliminating the need for such a massive seal cull.

it's just rather annoying how many americans seem to think they know what's best for everyone in every other country in the world.
who knows, maybe 10 yeard from now, france will be the best country in the world to live in if you're a minority because they treat everyone equally, with no special privilidges for minorities. they just passed this law last year so it's too early to judge the consequences of it. you never know, it could work out better than letting them wear the headscarves, large crosses, et c.

I know you are French and all, but do you read English???? I said NOT HAMRING ANYONE. Last time I checked, rape is pretty harmful.teaching a girl to wear a burka is not harmful?

yes

AH! Thanks for clearing that up. Now please surrender your civil liberties, big brother is watching you. :rolleyes: Maybe I should get Letila here and show him that statement..

Do you support marriage for 8 year old children?

8 year oilds can't enter a contract.

Gays are two consenting adults. I highly doubt an 8-year-old child would want to get married or have any sexual thoughts. Be reasonable now.
If I tell my daughter she should marry, you can be sure she will do it.

teaching a girl to wear a burka is not harmful?

No it isn't because if she doesn't want to wear then she doesn't have to.

8 year oilds can't enter a contract.Isn't that harming their freedom?

No it isn't because if she doesn't want to wear then she doesn't have to.
But if I tell my daughter she should wear a burka, she will do it.

No it isn't because if she doesn't want to wear then she doesn't have to.

heh. you've never dealt with peer pressure, have you? or pressure to conform to a tradition from your parents?

and the burka is what the taliban forced women to wear. they would amputate your foot if they saw your ankle...

:rolleyes: You're derailing the topic subject, Psylos.

heh. you've never dealt with peer pressure, have you? or pressure to conform to a tradition from your parents?

and the burka is what the taliban forced women to wear. they would amputate your foot if they saw your ankle...

But FRance doesn't make it neccessary. And guess what? If the parents beat the child for not conforming, you inform the proper authorities. If not, it's your loss.

:rolleyes: You're derailing the topic subject, Psylos.So you don't want to answer the question?

Isn't that harming their freedom?
they're not emotionally, physically or intellectually mature enough to commit to a lifelong contract such as marriage. or any other contract for that matter. if anything, it's something that tends to aid their future freedoms as at the age of 8, chances are you'll do as you're told rather than what you want. not allowing children as young as 8 to marry prevents parents from forcing their children into marriages for the sake of teh parents rather than for the child.

But FRance doesn't make it neccessary. And guess what? If the parents beat the child for not conforming, you inform the proper authorities. If not, it's your loss.They don't have to beat. Have you ever meet a 8 year old child? I can make them do anything I want.

they're not emotionally, physically or intellectually mature enough to commit to a lifelong contract such as marriage. or any other contract for that matter. if anything, it's something that tends to aid their future freedoms as at the age of 8, chances are you'll do as you're told rather than what you want. not allowing children as young as 8 to marry prevents parents from forcing their children into marriages for the sake of teh parents rather than for the child.
But they are mature enough to wear the burka?

But FRance doesn't make it neccessary. And guess what? If the parents beat the child for not conforming, you inform the proper authorities. If not, it's your loss.

1. i never mentioned physical abuse and
2. if there was physical abuse from parents, chances are a child wouldn't report it. how often do you hear of that happening?

But they are mature enough to wear the burka?

dude, i think the burqua is a bad idea for anyone... and this discussion isn't even about burquas, it's about headscarves, which are entirely different.

teaching a girl to wear a burka is not harmful?

Well, we weren't talking about burkas, but no - it is not harmful in and of itself. It does not cause immediate harm and the girl can always decide she doesn't agree with that teaching later on in life. Did you parents never teach you something that you now disagree with?

They don't have to beat. Have you ever meet a 8 year old child? I can make them do anything I want.

I see that you have not met many precocious 8 year olds.

Well, we weren't talking about burkas, but no - it is not harmful in and of itself. It does not cause immediate harm and the girl can always decide she doesn't agree with that teaching later on in life. Did you parents never teach you something that you now disagree with?Yes, a lot of things. I'm grateful to the state for the public school, where I learnt those things that my parents didn't know. I remember I educated my parents when coming back from school. They didn't know a lot of stuff.

Yes, a lot of things. I'm grateful to the state for the public school, where I learnt those things that my parents didn't know. I remember I educated my parents when coming back from school. They didn't know a lot of stuff.

Then you will agree that if a girl is taught to wear a head scarf, or a red rubber nose, or whatever - she may very well look around her and decide that she doesn't want to wear it. Conversely, she may decide that she *does* agree with it and continue wearing it.

I see that you have not met many precocious 8 year olds.
So you think 8 year old children like to wear the burka. Or do you think they wear the burka because they never knew anything else?

Then you will agree that if a girl is taught to wear a head scarf, or a red rubber nose, or whatever - she may very well look around her and decide that she doesn't want to wear it. Conversely, she may decide that she *does* agree with it and continue wearing it.
No, because it will seem to her like something which is not possible, because she's been wearing the burka all her life.
You don't learn to write just by looking around.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school. That's basically the option they just gave those young Muslim girls.


Personally I couln't care a stuff about Muslim anything! Islam is a religion which has no respect for any living creature especially of the human kind, preferring death as the ultimate goal of the people who follow it.

AH! Thanks for clearing that up. Now please surrender your civil liberties, big brother is watching you. :rolleyes: Maybe I should get Letila here and show him that statement..Oops sorry, I was not politically correct.
I should have said something along the line freedom and democracy for all, free market and all that stuff.
I have to learn political correctness.

Personally I couln't care a stuff about Muslim anything! Islam is a religion which has no respect for any living creature especially of the human kind, preferring death as the ultimate goal of the people who follow it.

and so the person who knows fuck-all makes an entrance.

Personally I couln't care a stuff about Muslim anything! Islam is a religion which has no respect for any living creature especially of the human kind, preferring death as the ultimate goal of the people who follow it.1. You have no clue whatsoever about Islam.
2. If you believe Judaism or Christianity is any different in regard of respect towards life, you are mistaken. After all, it is the same deity and the same basic rules that these three religions follow.

No, because it will seem to her like something which is not possible, because she's been wearing the burka all her life.
You don't learn to write just by looking around.

Learning to write and learning different viewpoints are not the same thing. Why do you think so many people change religions later on in life? Why do you think that children can be raised for the entirety of their lives by racist parents and end up not being racist themselves? Why do you think that some religions actually give their children time to go and learn other viewpoints (ie. Amish). You sorely underestimate people.

I completely support France's actions in this. The headcovering is an ostentatious symbol of religion (other such things are banned as well) and it has no place in the schools. Compared to the United freaking States, where public schools are all about promoting Judeo Christianity, France has the right idea. Not to mention the whole repression-of-women aspect that the headcovreing represents.

Bah, down with all religion.

Personally I couln't care a stuff about Muslim anything! Islam is a religion which has no respect for any living creature especially of the human kind, preferring death as the ultimate goal of the people who follow it.ANY religion has no respect for living creatures. We're all god's people. God decides who lives and who dies. Oh and I'm the hand of god. He told me to invade your little oil-rich country.

Learning to write and learning different viewpoints are not the same thing. Why do you think so many people change religions later on in life? Why do you think that children can be raised for the entirety of their lives by racist parents and end up not being racist themselves? Why do you think that some religions actually give their children time to go and learn other viewpoints (ie. Amish). You sorely underestimate people.I think all this is thanks to public education.

ANY religion has no respect for living creatures. We're all god's people. God decides who lives and who dies. Oh and I'm the hand of god. He told me to invade your little oil-rich country.

even Buddhism.

and Jainism.

and personal religions.

and countless nature-oriented pagan religions.

even Buddhism.
Buddhism is not a religion.

yes it is. Religion does not require a god.

it requires a set of beliefs.

and personal religions.They're not religions, just beliefs.

Buddhism is not a religion.
yes it is.

yes it is. Religion does not require a god.

it requires a set of beliefs.Then we have a different definition of religion. That may be why we disagree.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

VArious definitions of religion.

yes it is.According to me it is a philosophy.

According to me it is a philosophy.
according to most people, it's a religion. are you a buddhist yourself?

So, what makes Buddhism a philosophy and Christianity a religion? Just the belief of a god?

according to most people, it's a religion. are you a buddhist yourself?No I'm not.
Anyway, France doesn't consider buddhism to be a religion and buddhism doesn't fall into the law.

So, what makes Buddhism a philosophy and Christianity a religion? Just the belief of a god?
Well the cult. Buddhists don't go to the church, they don't pray in front of a cross, etc... They don't have to do things. They just have a value system.

I think all this is thanks to public education.

And yet you would essentially deny the opportunity for public education to these children because, right now, they believe they should be more modest than you or I. How nice of you to force them into a situation where they will never know anything else.

And yet you would essentially deny the opportunity for public education to these children because, right now, they believe they should be more modest than you or I. How nice of you to force them into a situation where they will never know anything else.No I want to force education on them, like forcing them to learn how to write and how to count.
Sorry, I realize that talking about forcing is not politically correct, but I don't know a better way to put it. If children are not forced to learn they don't learn because they are not mature enough to know what's good for them.

Well the cult. Buddhists don't go to the church, they don't pray in front of a cross, etc... They don't have to do things. They just have a value system.

There are buddhist temples and monks.

http://www.thaiembdc.org/directry/wat_e.htm

No I'm not.
Anyway, France doesn't consider buddhism to be a religion and buddhism doesn't fall into the law.

well, there aren't any big buddhist symbols that one would wear. i've seen girls with little tiny jade buddhas on necklaces, but small crosses and the like are fine under the french law.

oh, and also, not all muslim girls wear headscarves... a friend of mine in elementary school just had the little crescent moon and star on a necklace and wouldn't eat pork... otherwise she was normal... she even modled and all.

well, there aren't any big buddhist symbols that one would wear. i've seen girls with little tiny jade buddhas on necklaces, but small crosses and the like are fine under the french law.

oh, and also, not all muslim girls wear headscarves... a friend of mine in elementary school just had the little crescent moon and star on a necklace and wouldn't eat pork... otherwise she was normal... she even modled and all.The french government has a list of religions recognized as such. Buddhism is not one of them.

Of course it has an effect. But if it does not directly harm someone, it is free speech. People the deny the Holocaust - most of us know that they are idiots, but they are free to believe what they want..
No, they are not. Such hate-speech is criminal and ought to be punished. Such propaganda can have devastating effects. You don´t even need to look at the past you need to look at the rise of Islamism today and the rise of terrorism. It is terribly wrong to tolerate it. It ought to be banned. Such as hate speech and the denial of the holocaust is banned here. You can go to prison for that.



Some versions of Christianity condemn homosexuality, mine does not. Even if it did, I would still support *civil* homosexual marriages because civil marriages are a legal document that should be given equally to people of all types..
Which version doesn´t? It is the predominant opinion among christian churches (both catholic and most protestant churches).

No I want to force education on them, like forcing them to learn how to write and how to count.
Sorry, I realize that talking about forcing is not politically correct, but I don't know a better way to put it. If children are not forced to learn they don't learn because they are not mature enough to know what's good for them.

Education on a known fact and education of a belief system are two different things. The government has an interest in teaching reading, writing, arithmetic - things citizens need to get along.

It also has an interest in promoting tolerance, but making everybody act/dress/believe exactly the same thing is not the way to promote tolerance.

It *does not* have any interest in promoting particular belief system as being *better* than any other, which is what you are advocating. You think you are right (although you have no proof) and thus want to force your beliefs on everyone. However, their views are just as valid as yours and you have no more right to force your views on them than they have to force theirs on you.

Education on a known fact and education of a belief system are two different things. The government has an interest in teaching reading, writing, arithmetic - things citizens need to get along.

It also has an interest in promoting tolerance, but making everybody act/dress/believe exactly the same thing is not the way to promote tolerance.

It *does not* have any interest in promoting particular belief system as being *better* than any other, which is what you are advocating. You think you are right (although you have no proof) and thus want to force your beliefs on everyone. However, their views are just as valid as yours and you have no more right to force your views on them than they have to force theirs on you.
But I have proofs.
It has been experimented over and over that people can't walk on the water.
It has also been experimented that nazis are fucking annoying.

Anyway, I'm not trying to force a belief, I'm trying to prevent parents from doing so.

No, they are not. Such hate-speech is criminal and ought to be punished. Such propaganda can have devastating effects. You don´t even need to look at the past you need to look at the rise of Islamism today and the rise of terrorism. It is terribly wrong to tolerate it. It ought to be banned. Such as hate speech and the denial of the holocaust is banned here. You can go to prison for that.

Ok, so "it is done here" therefore "it is right" is your mode of argument. Ok, sure.

Which version doesn´t? It is the predominant opinion among christian churches (both catholic and most protestant churches).

Christians who do not need a preacher or priest who tell them what to think. I believe it is also not looked down upon by Unitarians, some Lutherans, and some Anglicans. But this is really off topic - start a new topic if you want to discuss it.

I love how atheists are united against god beliveing people and yet the god beliving people continue to fight eachother over belif. Its rather entertaining
(just a neutral observation)

But I have proofs.
It has been experimented over and over that people can't walk on the water.

God created the laws of physics, why wouldn't he be able to break them?

It has also been experimented that nazis are fucking annoying.

Can't argue with you there.

Anyway, I'm not trying to force a belief, I'm trying to prevent parents from doing so.

Parents ought to be able to raise thier kids on their faith. It doesn't stop the child from figuring out how they feel about religion when they get older. Just as wearing a yamulke (spelling?)/headscarf/cross doesn't force beliefs on anyone. Some people in my school wore a yamulke or a headscarf and nobody gave any thought about it or could care less.

Ok, so "it is done here" therefore "it is right" is your mode of argument. Ok, sure.

Your argument is everything ought to be allowed even if it is hate-speech and calls for violence that is causing people to follow it and to commit violent acts, for example of terrorism. And my answer to that is: NO.
And I think that the US is to tolerant to such things. There shouldn´t be tolerance to the intolerant.

So your definition of "equality" is liberty for all, unless their religion requires that you wear something. Your definition of "equality" denies religious freedom. Well, you can take that definition and shove it, because it doesn't make sense.

The rule itself was made specifically to abridge religious freedom. Therefore, it is an unjust law and should be overturned.


Yes it was! The real deal with France is that France threw out Christianity culturally long before it did governemtally. They got involved with the Jansenist Heresy and that poisoned the French people's minds against Christianity. It would poison ANYONE against Christianity. The other thing is France had a colonial empire which included huge areas of North Africa, a Muslim area. The people who wound up in France in some cases collaborated with the French but they remained Muslim. In other cases they simply went to France for economic reasons, France also ended up with refugees from places where Muslims were persecuted and gave them safe haven.
The French ended up with 6 million Muslims. There's more Muslims in France than in Bosnia, the next largest Muslim population in Europe, the only European country with more Muslims is Russia. Both Bosnia and Russia have had Muslim populations far longer and learned to live with that fact. Badly sometimes I'll admit, but they adjusted over all.
For France this is too new. They feel culturally very threatened. A thorough reading of France Fanon's book 'Wretched of the Earth' will be illustrative, as will a viewing of 'The Battle of Algiers'.

The other thing is France experienced the Jansenist Heresy, which poisoned a lot of French people against Catholicism and indeed against Christianity in general. The Jansenist Heresy is a big reason France is so militantly secular.
This is something I wish extreme right wing Christians in the U.S. would please think about. Any extreme position causes a reaction. In France that reaction was increasing hardcore, militant, secularism.

The really interesting thing that has happened over the headscarf ban that NO one is talking about, is that in Iraq some of those insane militants kidnapped people to try and force the French to rescind the head-scarf ban.
Guess what happened?

Muslim women in France demonstrated AGAINST the idiotic militants in Iraq!
Muslim clerics in France also spoke out against the idiotic militants!

They have recieved NO credit for this in the right wing press of the U.S. and I think that is disgraceful! All these people like Dr. Laura and Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage saying that the Muslims don't speak out against extremists, when in fact that is EXACTLY what has come to pass in France!

Most Muslim clerics have reminded the parents of girls that any nation has a right to make their own laws and after all this is only INSIDE the school premises. A girl can still wear her scarf anyplace else she wants.
They reminded their people that they have to obey the law and that they can perhaps work in the system to get it changed back. They reminded their people that violence will not help repair this situation.

Also France like any other sort of free society does have private schools, including Muslim private schools. These are not expensive like American Catholic schools. So Muslim parents with a REAL issue with this ban can take their daughters and put them in these schools instead. In this country this is an expensive option.

Do I think the ban is wrong? Hell yes! It is wrong from begining to end! It is provacative and stupid.

I respect the composure and dignity with which Muslims in France have dealt with their situation.

I'd like to see Christians start re-evaluating their own relationship to the question of physical modesty, perhaps that re-evaluation needs to start in France home of the fashion industry which tries so hard to make women dress worse than whores.
I'd like to see American Christians re-evaluate their relationship with the question of physical modesty even more.Since I live in the United States that matters more to me. What they do in France may bother me but I can't personally do anything about it. Sounds like the Muslims there are handling their own problem their own way, and very sensibly!

There was a woman in my college who invited me to her church instead of my church and I asked her 'excuse me, do you dress that way for church?' she had on tight tight pants , you could see her pany line, actually I give her credit for even having panties! She had LONG nails, teased hair, and an extremely low cut blouse. If I'd attempted to dress that way my mom would have made me take a bath and said 'Don't be dressing like those skanks on Ellis and Jones!'
I was not surprised when she said 'yes' 'Does your pastor say anything about it?' 'No, he's glad we come to church!'
I told her to read the bits in Paul about physical modesty and said 'If your church isn't teaching about this, it is picking and choosing in the Bible and you can't tell me that it preaches the whole true Gospel'
She never spoke with me again which was fine by me. Judgeing by how she continued to dress, I don't think she read what I suggested she read either. Thats O.K. it's her business.
I tried to set her straight.

But I have proofs.
It has been experimented over and over that people can't walk on the water.
It has also been experimented that nazis are fucking annoying.

Anyway, I'm not trying to force a belief, I'm trying to prevent parents from doing so.

We are not talking about either of those things, now are we? ((By the way, people can walk on water if that water is the Dead Sea - just so you know)). We are talking about subjective definitions of modesty. Show me how a person who thinks they should show their bare breasts all the time is better or worse than a person who thinks they should cover their breasts but can show bare shoulders no problem vs. a person that thinks they should cover their breasts, shoulders, arms, and hair to be modest? There are no *studies* on this. ((Neither could there be studies on who is or is not "fucking annoying" since this is a subjective term.))

You advocate forcing your beliefs on your children. How is this any different?

Your argument is everything ought to be allowed even if it is hate-speech and calls for violence that is causing people to follow it and to commit violent acts, for example of terrorism. And my answer to that is: NO.
And I think that the US is to tolerant to such things. There shouldn´t be tolerance to the intolerant.

No, if you cause violence directly, it ceases to be free speech. But saying "I hate so and so" does not directly cause violence.

If there shouldn't be tolerance to the intolerant, then I suppose we should not be tolerant of you.

No, if you cause violence directly, it ceases to be free speech. But saying "I hate so and so" does not directly cause violence.
If there shouldn't be tolerance to the intolerant, then I suppose we should not be tolerant of you.
You have to draq a line somewhere that is clear. But I think the line in the US is going too far.
And in the muslim world there is almost no limit to anti-western hate speech including the call for Dshihad (that is tolerated - but not critic on their governments of course).
And by the way: I´m not intolerant because I disagree with you. But you are obviously not able to differentiate if you think that everybody who disagrees with you is intolerant.

And by the way: I´m not intolerant because I disagree with you. But you are obviously not able to differentiate if you think that everybody who disagrees with you is intolerant.

I didn't say you are intolerant because you disagree with me. I have seen in other threads that you are intolerant because you make unfounded assumptions about entire groups of people based on the actions of a few and whatever you have heard from other intolerant sources. You refuse to listen to or even examine any evidence that may contradict your strongly held beliefs, making you not only intolerant, but irrational as well. These are not insults, nor are they due to you disagreeing with me - they are objective observations made based on your own behavior.

Chick Fight!
Chick Fight?

Heheheee... nothing. Anyho, I've read Dem's comments in the past, she seems to be reasonable, but it's hard to say if someone is intolerant without really knowing them as it is actions that count even if the mouth speaks what is on the heart.

PS. If you let people spout say, nazism, you get a lot of hate and fear and people bullying other people. Saying like, colored people (moi partly btw), should be euthanized but not actually attacking colored people would still be bad.
Anyway I'm sure you all knew the differencies and whatever I was going to point out. Eh, I didn't help at all.
I just wanted to yell chick fight...

Thanks for your time!!
*retreats into airlock and jettisons escape pod*
:mp5: :confused:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school.
Sounds reasonable enough.

Heheheee... nothing. Anyho, I've read Dem's comments in the past, she seems to be reasonable,

Thanks =)

but it's hard to say if someone is intolerant without really knowing them as it is actions that count even if the mouth speaks what is on the heart.

I think typing on an internet forum counts as actions. But, you are right - you cannot tell a person's personality over the internet. You can pick up some basic things about them based off of their posts, but that is not the whole person. I agree. But based only on Kyber's post, one would come to the conclusion that he is most definitely intolerant.

PS. If you let people spout say, nazism, you get a lot of hate and fear and people bullying other people. Saying like, colored people (moi partly btw), should be euthanized but not actually attacking colored people would still be bad.

Of course it would be bad, according to our view (which, of course, is right =). But it has still not harmed anyone, physically at least.

God created the laws of physics, why wouldn't he be able to break them?It has not been scientifically experimented and it never happened.
Parents ought to be able to raise thier kids on their faith. It doesn't stop the child from figuring out how they feel about religion when they get older. Just as wearing a yamulke (spelling?)/headscarf/cross doesn't force beliefs on anyone. Some people in my school wore a yamulke or a headscarf and nobody gave any thought about it or could care less.Do you know someone who weared the burka being young and who change her mind being adult?

We are not talking about either of those things, now are we? ((By the way, people can walk on water if that water is the Dead Sea - just so you know)). We are talking about subjective definitions of modesty. Show me how a person who thinks they should show their bare breasts all the time is better or worse than a person who thinks they should cover their breasts but can show bare shoulders no problem vs. a person that thinks they should cover their breasts, shoulders, arms, and hair to be modest? There are no *studies* on this. ((Neither could there be studies on who is or is not "fucking annoying" since this is a subjective term.))

You advocate forcing your beliefs on your children. How is this any different?I've gone to the dead sea. It a very salted water, you can sleep on it, but you can't walk on it. Well maybe you could 2000 years ago as maybe it was more salted. But this is not the point. You can't come back to life 3 days after being dead.
I don't advocate forcing belief on children. I advocate forcing knowledge.

I've gone to the dead sea. It a very salted water, you can sleep on it, but you can't walk on it. Well maybe you could 2000 years ago as maybe it was more salted. But this is not the point. You can't come back to life 3 days after being dead.
I don't advocate forcing belief on children. I advocate forcing knowledge.What is this thread about?
And who says that anybody came back after being really dead? One doesn't die from a couple of hours on a cross. In the Phillipines people do that every year.

What is this thread about?
And who says that anybody came back after being really dead? One doesn't die from a couple of hours on a cross. In the Phillipines people do that every year.
The philipines people need to get back to reason.

I've gone to the dead sea. It a very salted water, you can sleep on it, but you can't walk on it. Well maybe you could 2000 years ago as maybe it was more salted. But this is not the point. You can't come back to life 3 days after being dead.
I don't advocate forcing belief on children. I advocate forcing knowledge.

You can walk on the Dead Sea now, if you have something wide to spread the weight attached to your feet. Of course, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

The belief that there is no God is no more supportable than the belief that there is one, as it is an axiomatic problem and cannot be proven either way. By trying to force your belief that there is no God on chidlren, you are forcing belief, not knowledge.

The belief that there is no God is no more supportable than the belief that there is one, as it is an axiomatic problem and cannot be proven either way. By trying to force your belief that there is no God on chidlren, you are forcing belief, not knowledge.
And how is not talking about God synonym with forcing the belief that there is no God to children?

By that rationale, we are forcing the belief that there is moon around saturn as we rarely speak of them.

And how is not talking about God synonym with forcing the belief that there is no God to children?

By that rationale, we are forcing the belief that there is moon around saturn as we rarely speak of them.
Exclusion of a fact is not forcing the opposing beleif on someone. Like Canuck said, just because you don't tell them something, either because you don't know, or they never ask, doesn't mean you are indoctrinating your children in the opposing choice. Hell, using that arguement, you could say that informing children about god could be indoctrinating them into Christianity, (or any other religion), and persicuting atheists.

Why dosen't the government ban all religou clothing? You can't just pick what religous clothing you want rid of

Why dosen't the government ban all religou clothing? You can't just pick what religous clothing you want rid of
They didn't ban religious clothing per se. The banned ostentatious religious signs. The headscarf fall in that category. The little hat-like thing the jew wear also fall in that category. (sorry, I'm not sure what it's called)

And how is not talking about God synonym with forcing the belief that there is no God to children?

By that rationale, we are forcing the belief that there is moon around saturn as we rarely speak of them.

I never said it was. Schools should not mention God, unless it is to admit the fact that some people believe in deities. They also should never say that there is no God or that there cannot be, as this would be just as scientifically uncorrect as saying there definitely is.

But Psylos was arguing that we should forcibly remove all religious influence from children period, because they should only ever be exposed to what he considers "knowledge." The discussion has long since moved out of just the classroom. Psylos has argued that children should be forced into non-belief in any religion, which is utter bull.

I never said it was. Schools should not mention God, unless it is to admit the fact that some people believe in deities. They also should never say that there is no God or that there cannot be, as this would be just as scientifically uncorrect as saying there definitely is.

But Psylos was arguing that we should forcibly remove all religious influence from children period, because they should only ever be exposed to what he considers "knowledge." The discussion has long since moved out of just the classroom. Psylos has argued that children should be forced into non-belief in any religion, which is utter bull.
On that we can agree.

But freedom of religion should not be used to disregard other laws in place.

On that we can agree.

But freedom of religion should not be used to disregard other laws in place.

Laws that interfere with any fundamental right without just cause (ie. causing harm to someone else) should not be made in the first place. You may disagree that the right to religious freedom is fundamental, but I believe that it is.

Laws that interfere with any fundamental right without just cause (ie. causing harm to someone else) should not be made in the first place. You may disagree that the right to religious freedom is fundamental, but I believe that it is.
1. What does clothing have to do with religious freedoms?
2. Why would a god who can see into his followers hearts require them to wear any special clothing? In what way would it change their relationship with who they believe in?

Laws that interfere with any fundamental right without just cause (ie. causing harm to someone else) should not be made in the first place. You may disagree that the right to religious freedom is fundamental, but I believe that it is.
i don't believe religious freedom should have any special place at all; freedom of expression is important, but secular beliefs or choices are every bit as important as religious ones. just because somebody thinks God wants them to do something doesn't make it any more important that they be allowed the freedom to do it.

1. What does clothing have to do with religious freedoms?
2. Why would a god who can see into his followers hearts require them to wear any special clothing? In what way would it change their relationship with who they believe in?

Your second question criticizes religion in general, which isn't the way to defend France's policy because I certainly hope that as a country they aren't banning religion.

Your first question can be answered easily. Certain religions have traditions where the followers wear certain items of clothing. If these items are not harmful/offensive to others and do not disrupt the learning process than why are they banned? By France having this ban they do not let people practice their own religious traditions! How is this not outrageous to all of you freedom lovers. It reminds me of the USSR.

1. What does clothing have to do with religious freedoms?

Their religion requires them to be modest. To them, modesty includes covering the hair. Is it really so hard to piece together? Or would you like to be the one pulling clothing off of young girls and making them feel naked and exposed?

2. Why would a god who can see into his followers hearts require them to wear any special clothing? In what way would it change their relationship with who they believe in?

Who are you to determine what the God of another religion asks or does not ask?

i don't believe religious freedom should have any special place at all; freedom of expression is important, but secular beliefs or choices are every bit as important as religious ones. just because somebody thinks God wants them to do something doesn't make it any more important that they be allowed the freedom to do it.

If someone had proposed a secular reason for this, I would fight just as hard for that. The main point is that these girls do not feel fully dressed and modest without the head scarf. Asking them to go out without it is like asking me to wear lingerie to school, it would make me feel exposed, uncomfortable, and I would have a damn hard time learning anything.

You can walk on the Dead Sea now, if you have something wide to spread the weight attached to your feet. Of course, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

The belief that there is no God is no more supportable than the belief that there is one, as it is an axiomatic problem and cannot be proven either way. By trying to force your belief that there is no God on chidlren, you are forcing belief, not knowledge.
I think we don't have the same definition of religion.
It is not about the belief or god or not, it is about the rituals.
Believing in god is not a religion in my opinion, but a philosophy. It becomes a religion when you have to sacrifice a goat every saturday to god.

I think we don't have the same definition of religion.
It is not about the belief or god or not, it is about the rituals.
Believing in god is not a religion in my opinion, but a philosophy. It becomes a religion when you have to sacrifice a goat every saturday to god.

I'm pretty sure you've got the right idea: belief in God or gods is just belief. Religion is based upon a belief, and rites and rituals are built upon religion.

Listen to this guy - it makes sense:


Couple of things you have to know before jumping to conclusions:

1. The law is for public school only. Private school (like Jewish school) are not subject to the law.

2. The constitution of France clearly state that the religion has no place in a government institution. Public school, hospital, etc. are government institution. The law simply restate a article of the constitution that was not really enforced.

3. France is having big problems within his muslim communities. Radicals are taking over and are subjecting women to huge pressures to follow the rules of the Charia (sp?) which give them the short end of the stick in most situations. The French government is trying to stop this.

4. It's not taking away the right to religion more than trying to stop racism (children attacked because they are wearing star of David) and secularism. The muslim communities are slowly forming gettoes where there is racism and intolerance preached. If you look at how the middle east is faring these days, you can see how this is a concern for the French government.

5. There have been cases of older children taking the important tests for their sisters using the muslim headscarf to hide the deed.

6. The director of some school has been threathened by fundamentalists because he refused the use of headscarf in his school as was clearly stated in the school dress code.

It was high time the French government did something to stop the racism that is slowly tearing their country apart. Kudos to them, I say.

Human nature tends towards them and us. Sort of tribal. Now if you get rid of outward symbols that identify different tribes, everyone gets on better. Same reason why some places in UK don't allow people with football strip into the pubs - differences in belief cause fights (hear about the crusades?).

I think we don't have the same definition of religion.
It is not about the belief or god or not, it is about the rituals.
Believing in god is not a religion in my opinion, but a philosophy. It becomes a religion when you have to sacrifice a goat every saturday to god.

If you believe in a god, then you have some idea as to the nature of that god. And you may feel that that god requires modesty above and beyond what the average person requires. This hurts no one, and thus should be allowed.

Human nature tends towards them and us. Sort of tribal. Now if you get rid of outward symbols that identify different tribes, everyone gets on better. Same reason why some places in UK don't allow people with football strip into the pubs - differences in belief cause fights (hear about the crusades?).

Human nature does tend towards them and us - but that does not mean that we should attempt to make everyone conform to an arbitrary standard. We should be working *against* the problem that people fight over beliefs, not for it.

Human nature also leads to territoriality and the need to dominate, but we don't let people shoot anyone who comes near them or let men go around raping women, now do we? Those parts of human nature that cause harm to others are not to be bent to.

If you believe in a god, then you have some idea as to the nature of that god. And you may feel that that god requires modesty above and beyond what the average person requires. This hurts no one, and thus should be allowed.It hurts self and it hurts children if you make your children believe they should wear a burka and be 'modest'.
Now, if there was a rationale behind this, it would be a different matter, but a religion has no rationale, it's just about doing what has been done over the past 1000 years again and again.

Religion, like voting, drinking etc should be banned from practice until you're 18 or some such. Children shouldn't be brainwashed. Give them a chance to decide for themselves when they're old enough to make a judgement.

Good on France for taking a small step in that direction.

Human nature does tend towards them and us - but that does not mean that we should attempt to make everyone conform to an arbitrary standard. We should be working *against* the problem that people fight over beliefs, not for it.

Human nature also leads to territoriality and the need to dominate, but we don't let people shoot anyone who comes near them or let men go around raping women, now do we? Those parts of human nature that cause harm to others are not to be bent to.

How do you suggest that we work agains the problem of people fighting over differing beliefs? Surely getting rid of the symbols of difference so people can get to know each other for themselves without religion and the assumptions people make about religious groups, is a way to break down the barriers?

Human nature does tend towards them and us - but that does not mean that we should attempt to make everyone conform to an arbitrary standard. We should be working *against* the problem that people fight over beliefs, not for it.

Human nature also leads to territoriality and the need to dominate, but we don't let people shoot anyone who comes near them or let men go around raping women, now do we? Those parts of human nature that cause harm to others are not to be bent to.
But when parents bring their children to church every sunday, they are hurting them.

It hurts self and it hurts children if you make your children believe they should wear a burka and be 'modest'.
Now, if there was a rationale behind this, it would be a different matter, but a religion has no rationale, it's just about doing what has been done over the past 1000 years again and again.So you say religion is about preservation and a state of mind viewing change as a regrettable thing? That is in fact an interesting point.

So you say religion is about preservation and a state of mind viewing change as a regrettable thing? That is in fact an interesting point.
Well I'm sorry I know it sounds extreme and not politically correct in the anglo-saxon culture, but it is what I think and it is a big effort I made to say it publicly.
I know it hurts some feelings though.

It hurts self and it hurts children if you make your children believe they should wear a burka and be 'modest'.

Then it hurts self and it hurts children if you make your children believe they should wear clothes at all. We should ban clothing from school, since there is no rationale as to why any body parts have to be covered! I think we should stop parents from making their kids wear clothes. I was harmed when I was told that my breasts, butt, and vagina should be covered in public, damnit!

How do you suggest that we work agains the problem of people fighting over differing beliefs? Surely getting rid of the symbols of difference so people can get to know each other for themselves without religion and the assumptions people make about religious groups, is a way to break down the barriers?

No, asking people to give up their differences will only solidify their bond to each other and cause them to pull away from other groups.

In order to stop people from fighting over differing beliefs, children must be exposed to many differing beliefs and must see that, regardless of what they are wearing, the color of their skin, monetary status, etc. - they are still people to be treated the same as anyone else. This cannot be demonstrated if all we do is try and hide the fact that people have differences at all.

Religion, like voting, drinking etc should be banned from practice until you're 18 or some such. Children shouldn't be brainwashed. Give them a chance to decide for themselves when they're old enough to make a judgement.

Good on France for taking a small step in that direction.

Let's ban opinions too until you're 18! :D

Then it hurts self and it hurts children if you make your children believe they should wear clothes at all. We should ban clothing from school, since there is no rationale as to why any body parts have to be covered! I think we should stop parents from making their kids wear clothes. I was harmed when I was told that my breasts, butt, and vagina should be covered in public, damnit!
We're not there yet. In a thousand year maybe.
But indeed I agree. Covering the breast is a renmant of old religious rituals. Perhaps in a thousand years it will not be important at all.
But we have to start with the obvious.

No, asking people to give up their differences will only solidify their bond to each other and cause them to pull away from other groups.

In order to stop people from fighting over differing beliefs, children must be exposed to many differing beliefs and must see that, regardless of what they are wearing, the color of their skin, monetary status, etc. - they are still people to be treated the same as anyone else. This cannot be demonstrated if all we do is try and hide the fact that people have differences at all.
But people are not different when it comes to religion. We are all the same.
Monetary status difference should not exist at all. That's just a renmant of an old class system where there was the rich and the poor. We should try to reduce this difference as much as possible.
The color of skin is in a small difference we have and not linked to society and this difference will stay, but I have no problem with that. I only have problem with the differences that society is creating. Those differences should be minimal. Everyone should be born equal in right.

What you are saying is that the children should learn to live with the different classes instead of fighting against the class system. I disagree. We are all equal in rights.

We're not there yet. In a thousand year maybe.
But indeed I agree. Covering the breast is a renmant of old religious rituals. Perhaps in a thousand years it will not be important at all.
But we have to start with the obvious.

True true. I find it amusing that in female-driven societies, men went about totally uncovered. They had tatoos and piercings, too!

Let's ban opinions too until you're 18! :DDangerous ones only.

No, asking people to give up their differences will only solidify their bond to each other and cause them to pull away from other groups.

In order to stop people from fighting over differing beliefs, children must be exposed to many differing beliefs and must see that, regardless of what they are wearing, the color of their skin, monetary status, etc. - they are still people to be treated the same as anyone else. This cannot be demonstrated if all we do is try and hide the fact that people have differences at all.

Surely you can see that is an idealistic point of view. Children are nasty. They can be hurtful and spiteful to other children over trival matters, so I'm sure they use religion as a great divider. If they tease other children relentlessly for being fat, imagine how they treat others with different colour skin, or with headscarves.

we need to be realistic. loads of adults have problems with people because of the differences that exist between them (religion, sexuality, skin colour), so why do you expect children to behave differently. Broadcasting a persons religion especially when involving children will only promote people of a similar religion coming together, and those of differing religions segragating themselves. This is not really what we want, just human nature. We need to combat this.

Surely you can see that is an idealistic point of view. Children are nasty. They can be hurtful and spiteful to other children over trival matters, so I'm sure they use religion as a great divider. If they tease other children relentlessly for being fat, imagine how they treat others with different colour skin, or with headscarves.

Idealistic? Maybe. But you are incredibly naive if you think *anything* will stop kids from making fun of each other. However, as I said, the way to teach them not to use something as a divider is not to remove it. If we remove it, we have just taught the kids that it is ok to make fun of anyone different, since obviously no one should be different.

The way to teach them is to let them do it and then punish them or tell them it is wrong. All you do by removing every little difference is *encourage* the children to grow up to be the type of people who are afraid of anyone who is different from them. Compare someone who grew up surrounded by many different cultures to one who grew up in a small town in which everyone was basically the same. Which do you think is more tolerant and open to new cultures?

we need to be realistic. loads of adults have problems with people because of the differences that exist between them (religion, sexuality, skin colour), so why do you expect children to behave differently. Broadcasting a persons religion especially when involving children will only promote people of a similar religion coming together, and those of differing religions segragating themselves. This is not really what we want, just human nature. We need to combat this.

I don't expect children to behave differently. However, if exposed to different cultures as children, they will behave differently as adults (or at least are more likely to). It is our duty to teach children that what a person is wearing, etc. does not make them any less of a person. We cannot do that if they are never exposed to it in the first place.

As for different religions segregating themselves, nothing encourages segregation like a group feeling persecuted. Suppose you made all the little girls go to school naked - how many of them do you think would feel comfortable talking to boys? If you force these girls to *not* wear the headscarf, they are more likely to only associate with others who have been similarly forced to be immodest. You are very unlikely to get much mixing between groups. At least, if she is wearing it, she will feel comfortable with herself, and if someone approaches and asks about it, she will be able to talk to them and explain it.

Idealistic? Maybe. But you are incredibly naive if you think *anything* will stop kids from making fun of each other. However, as I said, the way to teach them not to use something as a divider is not to remove it. If we remove it, we have just taught the kids that it is ok to make fun of anyone different, since obviously no one should be different.

The way to teach them is to let them do it and then punish them or tell them it is wrong. All you do by removing every little difference is *encourage* the children to grow up to be the type of people who are afraid of anyone who is different from them. Compare someone who grew up surrounded by many different cultures to one who grew up in a small town in which everyone was basically the same. Which do you think is more tolerant and open to new cultures?



I don't expect children to behave differently. However, if exposed to different cultures as children, they will behave differently as adults (or at least are more likely to). It is our duty to teach children that what a person is wearing, etc. does not make them any less of a person. We cannot do that if they are never exposed to it in the first place.

As for different religions segregating themselves, nothing encourages segregation like a group feeling persecuted. Suppose you made all the little girls go to school naked - how many of them do you think would feel comfortable talking to boys? If you force these girls to *not* wear the headscarf, they are more likely to only associate with others who have been similarly forced to be immodest. You are very unlikely to get much mixing between groups. At least, if she is wearing it, she will feel comfortable with herself, and if someone approaches and asks about it, she will be able to talk to them and explain it.
Interesting. What is a culture in your opinion?
Does school teach a culture?

But when parents bring their children to church every sunday, they are hurting them.
i would say, rather, that parents hurt their children when they bring their children to only one particular church. any responsible parent would bring their child to a different institution each week, to give that child the most comprehensive background possible and allow that child to make a well-informed decision. my parents had me go to many different churches, temples, synogogues, philosophical discussion groups, and secular educational community groups, so i would be informed about a wide range of the possible religious/secular orientations. i don't see how any loving parent would do differently, since insulating your child from alternatives is not going to help them be a good person or a wise adult; if you child only believes in their faith because they have never experienced any other then their faith is worthless.

i would say, rather, that parents hurt their children when they bring their children to only one particular church. any responsible parent would bring their child to a different institution each week, to give that child the most comprehensive background possible and allow that child to make a well-informed decision. my parents had me go to many different churches, temples, synogogues, philosophical discussion groups, and secular educational community groups, so i would be informed about a wide range of the possible religious/secular orientations. i don't see how any loving parent would do differently, since insulating your child from alternatives is not going to help them be a good person or a wise adult; if you child only believes in their faith because they have never experienced any other then their faith is worthless.
Agreed, 300%, no, 500%. Oh wait, 1000%

i would say, rather, that parents hurt their children when they bring their children to only one particular church. any responsible parent would bring their child to a different institution each week, to give that child the most comprehensive background possible and allow that child to make a well-informed decision. my parents had me go to many different churches, temples, synogogues, philosophical discussion groups, and secular educational community groups, so i would be informed about a wide range of the possible religious/secular orientations. i don't see how any loving parent would do differently, since insulating your child from alternatives is not going to help them be a good person or a wise adult; if you child only believes in their faith because they have never experienced any other then their faith is worthless.

Thank you! Finally someone agrees with me!

Now, would you agree that, since many parents will not do as yours did (about many things, not just religion), that we as a society should try and ensure that children are exposed to many different viewpoints, rather than asking them to be little automotons who all look and act exactly the same?

Interesting. What is a culture in your opinion?
Does school teach a culture?

Culture includes many things, from the style of dress to the views expressed, to what kind of dance most people do when music is playing. I don't really have a good definition for it.

As for school teaching a culture, that is not the purpose of a school. The school itself should simply provide an atmosphere in which people from many different cultures can learn reading, writing, math, etc, etc. If this atmosphere is provided, then children will learn that many cultures are present, without the need for the school to explicitly teach that.

However, if you try to remove individuality forcibly, school is enforcing a culture that may not be that of the student and may, in fact, make the student very uncomfortable and negatively affect their ability to learn.

Thank you! Finally someone agrees with me!

Now, would you agree that, since many parents will not do as yours did (about many things, not just religion), that we as a society should try and ensure that children are exposed to many different viewpoints, rather than asking them to be little automotons who all look and act exactly the same?
i don't believe it is society's job to raise children well. if parents do a crappy job then that's their problem. it is the job of public education to educate children about empirical facts, not to instill values, and i don't think we should waste any public school time trying to make kids embrace any particular cultural view (including the currently popular "multicultural rainbow" values). i deeply wish my own school system hadn't wasted so much of my time with lessons on "accepting others" and "being nice to those who are different." we can barely afford teachers and supplies to cover basic math, so why the hell are we spending money to parent other people's kids?

i am all for freedom of expression in general, but i don't think religion deserves any special standing; if a school has a dress code forbidding headwear of any kind then "religious reasons" should not be an excuse that allows a student to get an exception to the rule. personally i think kids should be able to come to school in whatever the hell they please, including in nothing at all, but if there IS a dress code then religious motivations shouldn't be given any more credence than secular ones...my secular desire to wear a baseball cap didn't mean i was allowed to do so in my middle school, so i thought it was crap that muslim students were allowed to wear head-coverings simply because they thought some supernatural being told them to. my secular beliefs are as valid as their religious ones (in many ways even more so), and i don't see why special treatment should be granted for "religious reasons"

i don't believe it is society's job to raise children well. if parents do a crappy job then that's their problem. it is the job of public education to educate children about empirical facts, not to instill values, and i don't think we should waste any public school time trying to make kids embrace any particular cultural view (including the currently popular "multicultural rainbow" values). i deeply wish my own school system hadn't wasted so much of my time with lessons on "accepting others" and "being nice to those who are different." we can barely afford teachers and supplies to cover basic math, so why the hell are we spending money to parent other people's kids?

I wasn't referring to special classes about accepting cultures. I simply meant that children must be exposed to different views in order to be able to accept them as views. If we try to force everyone into conformity "for their own safety," all we have done is teach a cultural view of conformity.

i am all for freedom of expression in general, but i don't think religion deserves any special standing; if a school has a dress code forbidding headwear of any kind then "religious reasons" should not be an excuse that allows a student to get an exception to the rule. personally i think kids should be able to come to school in whatever the hell they please, including in nothing at all, but if there IS a dress code then religious motivations shouldn't be given any more credence than secular ones...my secular desire to wear a baseball cap didn't mean i was allowed to do so in my middle school, so i thought it was crap that muslim students were allowed to wear head-coverings simply because they thought some supernatural being told them to. my secular beliefs are as valid as their religious ones (in many ways even more so), and i don't see why special treatment should be granted for "religious reasons"

I am simply saying that a dress code should not exclude something that is considered necessary clothing. I, personally, would fight against a dress code that said I couldn't wear a shirt or bra. That would make me feel exposed and very uncomfortable and the end result would be that I would be so busy worrying about being half naked that I would be unable to learn.

Culture includes many things, from the style of dress to the views expressed, to what kind of dance most people do when music is playing. I don't really have a good definition for it.

As for school teaching a culture, that is not the purpose of a school. The school itself should simply provide an atmosphere in which people from many different cultures can learn reading, writing, math, etc, etc. If this atmosphere is provided, then children will learn that many cultures are present, without the need for the school to explicitly teach that.

However, if you try to remove individuality forcibly, school is enforcing a culture that may not be that of the student and may, in fact, make the student very uncomfortable and negatively affect their ability to learn.
reding and writing... interesting. In which language?

I wasn't referring to special classes about accepting cultures. I simply meant that children must be exposed to different views in order to be able to accept them as views. If we try to force everyone into conformity "for their own safety," all we have done is teach a cultural view of conformity.

I am simply saying that a dress code should not exclude something that is considered necessary clothing. I, personally, would fight against a dress code that said I couldn't wear a shirt or bra. That would make me feel exposed and very uncomfortable and the end result would be that I would be so busy worrying about being half naked that I would be unable to learn.
i think we agree, pretty much. though i believe religious superstition is harmful, dangerous, and an unhealthy choice, i don't think isolating children from religion is the solution, any more than Prohibition was the solution to alcohol abuse problems.

i don't see any reason to keep cultural differences hidden from children, especially not for the bullshit reason that they might tease each other; kids are going to find things to tease each other about in any situation, because some kids are just jerks like that, and if it's not religion it will be weight or hair or physical ability or something. also, saying that people should hide a feature just because some people might tease them for it is only blaming the victim. if we accepted that line of thought then why not just tell black kids they should cover their skin in makeup so as not to be teased by racist kids?

religion is a horrible threat to children, but we don't deal with threats by pretending they aren't there. if you want kids to make wise choices then you have to allow them to learn about the dangers in life, and you have to give them as much information as possible so they can apply their minds to the full problem. hiding the facts won't help them make good choices, and teaching them to just do what the grown-ups say won't help them grow into good adults.

reding and writing... interesting. In which language?

Well, at least the one that will be of most use to them. Others if it is provided for in that school.

I am simply saying that a dress code should not exclude something that is considered necessary clothing. I, personally, would fight against a dress code that said I couldn't wear a shirt or bra. That would make me feel exposed and very uncomfortable and the end result would be that I would be so busy worrying about being half naked that I would be unable to learn.
That's because your parents made you feel unconfortable when you are half naked. They teached you never to be half naked.
Let's say your parents teached you half naked people are inferior, you would believe it.

Well, at least the one that will be of most use to them. Others if it is provided for in that school.
I have this idea : would you support suppressing those teaching in school and let the parents teach how to write and how to read? Like this, the parents would teach their language as part of their culture.

Is that a good idea in your opinion?

Fuck France

That's because your parents made you feel unconfortable when you are half naked. They teached you never to be half naked.
Let's say your parents teached you half naked people are inferior, you would believe it.

Perhaps, until I met some half naked people that were not inferior. Then, I would know that my parents were wrong.

My mother things that sexuality is a choice, I do not. Quit acting like kids believe every little thing their parents tell them for the rest of their lives.

I have this idea : would you support suppressing those teaching in school and let the parents teach how to write and how to read? Like this, the parents would teach their language as part of their culture.

Is that a good idea in your opinion?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but no. A child must learn the skills they will need to get along in life. Reading and writing is one of them, and thus should be taught in schools.

However, this has nothing to do with a head scarf, which does not hurt anyone's ability to learn or get along in life.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but no. A child must learn the skills they will need to get along in life. Reading and writing is one of them, and thus should be taught in schools.

However, this has nothing to do with a head scarf, which does not hurt anyone's ability to learn or get along in life.I think it does hurt their abilities to go to the swimming pool.

We do not live in a free world and never will do, You can not have freedom when there is laws. They are self excluding options.

Equaility is making people the same, this is what this law does, it not not grant special treatment for any minority, group, religion, its a law that creates equaility, A good thing really. Not unjust, but positive. Oh and equaility is not about freedom, you can have equaility without freedom.

Sorry to bring this up, but I thought it really funny.
"Equality is making people the same..."

Some people are smarter than me, some people are stronger than me, that's not fair, whaaaaa! Make them stupid by hitting them over the head with a hammer and make them weaker by chaining weights to their limbs until where all as dumb as the dumbest person and as weak as the weakest person. That should ensure equality.

Being serious for a moment, equality is not making everyone the same, its treating everyone the same regardless of their differences, be they religious or whatever.

I think it does hurt their abilities to go to the swimming pool.

So? Last time I checked, going to the swimming pool is not a necessary part of life. In fact, if the swimming pool is outside, it can contribute to your chances of getting skin cancer and cause you to die sooner.

I very rarely go to the swimming pool, does that mean that I am not living a full life?

So? Last time I checked, going to the swimming pool is not a necessary part of life. In fact, if the swimming pool is outside, it can contribute to your chances of getting skin cancer and cause you to die sooner.

I very rarely go to the swimming pool, does that mean that I am not living a full life?
Yes but right now, in Canada there some people who want to have hours in public swimming pool where no man is allowed. I'm all for different religion, but why do you draw the line. I'm not allowed in a public pool from 6 to 9 because some muslim complained? Give me a break.

Sorry to bring this up, but I thought it really funny.
"Equality is making people the same..."

Some people are smarter than me, some people are stronger than me, that's not fair, whaaaaa! Make them stupid by hitting them over the head with a hammer and make them weaker by chaining weights to their limbs until where all as dumb as the dumbest person and as weak as the weakest person. That should ensure equality.

Being serious for a moment, equality is not making everyone the same, its treating everyone the same regardless of their differences, be they religious or whatever.
it depends; for people to be actually equal to one another, we would have to do exactly what you propose...bash smarter people over the head, cut off taller people at the knees, etc. as our experience with the Civil Rights movement taught us, different cannot be equal. people are NOT equal, in reality, and i don't believe we should try to make people equal.

however, granting all people equal legal rights is a different matter. whether or not i am your equal doesn't impact whether or not i am granted equal rights according to American law. you could be superior to me in every possible way (better looking, healthier, smarter, nicer, more successful, etc), but i still would be given the same legal rights as you are, and the same basic freedoms. i support THAT sort of equality, which is completely opposed to the idea of forcing each person to be equal to all others in nature or ability or financial situation or whathaveyou.

This law is good!

If the "little muslim girl" as Dempublicents put it doesn't like this law, then fine. She no longer can attend a public school. If the parents can't afford a private school, then too bad from them.

I think the governments of the world should gradually weed out religion from society. It has no place in today's world.

Why the hell would any one want to live in France anyways?

Why the hell would any one want to live in France anyways?
OH, it is a nice and big country - especially from an european perspective. The problem is: you would need to be able to speak French to life there.
So, NO I wouldn´t.

But I think the French law is justified. I have outlined my positions in this thread before though.

Why the hell would any one want to live in France anyways?
France is cool, I want to go study there for a semester.

Vive La France, non?

Actually, the reason for the latest development in france regarding the this issue is: By allowing the head garb for religious purpose you cannot disallow (if thats a word?) someone from wearing anything that covers thier face...ie, a terrorist in a train station. The object goal is simple, noone covers thier face so everyone can see who is commiting crimes or the such. In fact in america to deter some crimes during holloween most stores and banks and such will not allow you to wear anything that covers your face. What france is trying to do is the same it is deterent, of course this will not stop someone from coming into a bank with a mask and robbing it, but it helps to deter the crime. America does the same thing just, well , quietly i guess you can say. Look france is not anti-any religion, in wake of the recent terror activity this is a sound idea.This is not a religion issue, its a saftey issue.

I dont mind the country of France, its just the people that irritate me

If anyone thinks that America is a more Free country than France, i would say to them try living there for some time and you'll see. I lived there for 5 years. I am american and i didnt speak a lick when i went. I learned quickly and began to enjoy a real sense of freedom. I enjoyed and still enjoy France as often as i can. I am also an American Vet, so when it comes to freedoms, i earned mine, the hard way. But i feel that the more our nation grows the worse it gets. In Washington state the new voting sytem requires you to pick only a party rather than a person. This is not freedom. If i like one guy who is running for gov. and a rep. but i like a dem. sen. i should be able to vote for the individual not just the party. This is just an example of the lack of freedom our nation is embraccing. I could name a few other things but for now ill just leave that on the board.

I dont mind the country of France, its just the people that irritate me

Whats wrong with the people? If you can speak French, they are the some of the greatest people ever. very open-minded, smart, Artsy, and just a fun group of peoples.

Just another bit of helpful news: One of the prime reasons it did not rush into the war on Saddam, besides the obvious (No WMD!!!) France was very busy with the ivory coast at the time, Military involvement and all. Of course, when bush told France(not asked) to help they could not, thier priority is to thier own nation, when thats settled then they can help others....Unlike America who ignores thier own suffering masses to save foriegners.

Yes but right now, in Canada there some people who want to have hours in public swimming pool where no man is allowed. I'm all for different religion, but why do you draw the line. I'm not allowed in a public pool from 6 to 9 because some muslim complained? Give me a break.

And I would argue against that rule if the pool is run on public monies. If someone wants to wear a special head covering in the pool, or choses to wait until a time when no men are in the water to go for a swim, fine. But a public pool should be open to the public (unless it is specificly rented out for a demonstration or a party, which must be arranged well ahead of time).

Actually, the reason for the latest development in france regarding the this issue is: By allowing the head garb for religious purpose you cannot disallow (if thats a word?) someone from wearing anything that covers thier face...ie, a terrorist in a train station. The object goal is simple, noone covers thier face so everyone can see who is commiting crimes or the such. In fact in america to deter some crimes during holloween most stores and banks and such will not allow you to wear anything that covers your face. What france is trying to do is the same it is deterent, of course this will not stop someone from coming into a bank with a mask and robbing it, but it helps to deter the crime. America does the same thing just, well , quietly i guess you can say. Look france is not anti-any religion, in wake of the recent terror activity this is a sound idea.This is not a religion issue, its a saftey issue.

The head scarf does not cover the face, it covers the hair. It is the burqua that covers the face, so that argument holds no water.

I think the governments of the world should gradually weed out religion from society. It has no place in today's world.

You have just proven yourself no better than a religious fundamentalist. Congratulations.

The head scarf does not cover the face, it covers the hair. It is the burqua that covers the face, so that argument holds no water.
Note the burka also falls under this law.

You have just proven yourself no better than a religious fundamentalist. Congratulations.
Except he doesn't tell Jesus reincarnated several time or that he can fly.

I dont mind the country of France, its just the people that irritate me
Oh so how many french do you know?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school. That's basically the option they just gave those young Muslim girls.

You see the problem here is the position of Western Europe and the US.
We are post-christians societies while you are not. The laws specifies RELIGIOUS symbols. If the individual school allows for hats and such, then the girls can wear bandanas. If not, well tough really. Religion is something you do at home or where ever, it has no role in modern society (schools, work, gov.). Of course people's preferences should be respected, but within the rules set. In the case of France, there has always been a strong separation between religion and state.

Either France is trying to secularize itself in a rather crude fashion or is just plain stupid


Or both.

America is also supposed to be the land of liberty, but where is HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

That's what I thought.

It's the land of liberty, but only for a select few.

Exactly, you can't attack France when the same thing is happing in your nation. This crap happens everywhere...

America is also supposed to be the land of liberty, but where is HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

Legal quiite in a few states. Get a clue.

The ban on head scarves goes to far. Religious promotion may not be compatable, but wearing a scarf or cross or other religious symbol is not going to interfere with others at school or work. Its a private issue and a personal choice. Here in Europe we are definately much more open about the bigotry we feel to others. Religion is a personal opinion and expression. Like any other personal expression, it's up to you to decide if the risks of that expression are worth the potential problems that always come with supporting what you think is right. Safety vs. Freedom? Well, with freedom you always risk safety. Remember, oppresive govts thru history have always used the excuse of "for your own good" to curtail freedoms. A stray dog is free, but completely on his own....his domestic conterpart is certainly more safe and secure, but cannot come and go at will ect. As far as keeping children safe, we could keep them in padded cages to insure their safety...but certainly they'd have no freedom. Freedom and risk go hand in hand. Parents and children struggle with this all the time: They may worry about their child being able to handle situations where they'd be exposed to sex and drugs and alcohol.....so do they forbid their kids to go to parties or go out after dark? Come directly home? Or do they give their children the credit to handle the situations on their own and educate them as best as possible? Things to think about....

ButtWeasel

The ban on head scarves goes to far. Religious promotion may not be compatable, but wearing a scarf or cross or other religious symbol is not going to interfere with others at school or work. Its a private issue and a personal choice. Here in Europe we are definately much more open about the bigotry we feel to others. Religion is a personal opinion and expression. Like any other personal expression, it's up to you to decide if the risks of that expression are worth the potential problems that always come with supporting what you think is right. Safety vs. Freedom? Well, with freedom you always risk safety. Remember, oppresive govts thru history have always used the excuse of "for your own good" to curtail freedoms. A stray dog is free, but completely on his own....his domestic conterpart is certainly more safe and secure, but cannot come and go at will ect. As far as keeping children safe, we could keep them in padded cages to insure their safety...but certainly they'd have no freedom. Freedom and risk go hand in hand. Parents and children struggle with this all the time: They may worry about their child being able to handle situations where they'd be exposed to sex and drugs and alcohol.....so do they forbid their kids to go to parties or go out after dark? Come directly home? Or do they give their children the credit to handle the situations on their own and educate them as best as possible? Things to think about....

ButtWeaselBut if parents restrict the freedom of their children, I think the state must intervene and not give the parents a free hand.
Chaos is not freedom. In Chaos, the one with the biggest stick rules on others.
The state should guarentee the freedom of the children.

Legal quiite in a few states. Get a clue.

Out of curiosity, in how many states? I was lead to believe that all the states are in the process of banning it. either now or in the future.
Please correct me an inform.

Don't know if its been mentioned already, but this is france we're talking about.
Since they wrote their first constitution, they have always wished to separate the governmental instituation and the religious institution.

This will just as easily apply to sikhs wishing to wear their errr....head gear (sorry not sure on the correct term). Or a jews wishing to wear a skull cap.
Or a christians wishing to wear a huge cross or whatever.

And can someone explain to me what is the problem with banning religious symbols such as headscarfs? I've heard about modesty and such, but a head scarf only covers the hair anyway. We're not talking about the full "costume" which covers everything except for the eyes.

sorry guys writing fast, if i'm not clear or anything please informa and shall correct

First off who ever said France was a free country?
I am Canadian but I live in Europe. Most of Europe is backwards, bigoted and selfish, why do you think most of the first settlers to the Americas left Europe? Do you think they liked leaving their homes? Of course not, but in Europe there is a long history of religious oppression. France (and to a large degree the Catholic church) has long been the center of this oppression. Be glad you live in a free and open country like Canada or America.

Separation of church and state means that the state does not interfere with religion and religion does not interfere with the state.

Schools are public institutions and as such the government does not pay for them, the tax payer does, (i.e. the parents of the head scarf wearing little girl). Europen Union laws forbid the new French laws but someone has to take them to court for this to be upheld.

First off who ever said France was a free country?
I am Canadian but I live in Europe. Most of Europe is backwards, bigoted and selfish, why do you think most of the first settlers to the Americas left Europe? Do you think they liked leaving their homes? Of course not, but in Europe there is a long history of religious oppression. France (and to a large degree the Catholic church) has long been the center of this oppression. Be glad you live in a free and open country like Canada or America.
Separation of church and state means that the state does not interfere with religion and religion does not interfere with the state.
Schools are public institutions and as such the government does not pay for them, the tax payer does, (i.e. the parents of the head scarf wearing little girl). Europen Union laws forbid the new French laws but someone has to take them to court for this to be upheld.This is the worst rubbish I have read in a long time. Where do you live in Europe? You have absolutely no clue what is going on in Europe.

First off who ever said France was a free country?
I am Canadian but I live in Europe. Most of Europe is backwards, bigoted and selfish, why do you think most of the first settlers to the Americas left Europe? Do you think they liked leaving their homes? Of course not, but in Europe there is a long history of religious oppression. France (and to a large degree the Catholic church) has long been the center of this oppression. Be glad you live in a free and open country like Canada or America.

Separation of church and state means that the state does not interfere with religion and religion does not interfere with the state.

Schools are public institutions and as such the government does not pay for them, the tax payer does, (i.e. the parents of the head scarf wearing little girl). Europen Union laws forbid the new French laws but someone has to take them to court for this to be upheld.

Public institutions are part of the government.
Although not really familiar with Canada, the US does not seem all that free to me. STATE schools follow the rules of the STATE.

This is the worst rubbish I have read in a long time. Where do you live in Europe? You have absolutely no clue what is going on in Europe.

amen to that.

If you want to look to an advanced country with a reasonable good government and sound church and state policies than examine Sweden (yes I know it is in Europe but it mostly keeps to itself and the other Nordic states). They would never think of such a ban.

Public institutions are part of the government.
Although not really familiar with Canada, the US does not seem all that free to me. STATE schools follow the rules of the STATE.

America may seem one way when you listen to the usual jealous anti-American press here in European, and another when you have some experience with it. Yes it is not a perfect country (neither is Canada) but nowhere in the world is as free (especially in religious matters) as North America.

If you want to look to an advanced country with a reasonable good government and sound church and state policies than examine Sweden (yes I know it is in Europe but it mostly keeps to itself and the other Nordic states). They would never think of such a ban.That maybe because Sweden has no large Muslim population, in which extremist elements try to influence the education of kids by forcing them to wear certain clothing and behaving in certain ways.

America may seem one way when you listen to the usual jealous anti-American press here in European, and another when you have some experience with it. Yes it is not a perfect country (neither is Canada) but nowhere in the world is as free (especially in religious matters) as North America.

Well based on my experiences in america (was short), my american friends in NY/NO, spain and UK, i'd have to disagree with you.
The problem is you say anti-american press. The article this thread is based on is anti-european/french.
After the 2 french journalists were kidnapped, not a single attack was aimed at the muslim population of france (that i know of).

Also only a slightly silly point: if america is so free they should change the pleadge of allegiance to remove god (and in other stuff like that, as it is against athiests and people that believe in polytheism.

First off who ever said France was a free country?
I am Canadian but I live in Europe. Most of Europe is backwards, bigoted and selfish, why do you think most of the first settlers to the Americas left Europe? Do you think they liked leaving their homes? Of course not, but in Europe there is a long history of religious oppression. France (and to a large degree the Catholic church) has long been the center of this oppression.

Last time I checked the Vatican was the centre of the Catholic Church, who are responsible for much (if not all) of the persecution. Also some of the worst perescution was in Spain (Spanish Inquisition...) and in Britain (Henrey VIII onwards particularly, alternating between Catholic and Protestant queens made life hell for either religion, also the situation in Ireland which continues to this day). France has never been as feverant as other states.

How can you relate the persecution of non-Catholics and the Pilgrims (two different times in history largely) to todays society? By that rationale all the Americans should be Puritan, since that is how they were in the beginning.

How can you call Europe "backwards, bigoted and selfish" when you're using the US as an example of greatness. Europe has some of the most progressive, open minded countries out there and is far more left-leaning than the US (I say that comparitively). There may be a vocal minority who are "backwards, bigoted and selfish" but it is not the norm. And if you want History as presidence where did the socialist movement originate? Think about the Leveller, Diggers, Paris Commune...Marx himself was German. Europe has a longer history of wanting social equality (maybe not on the whole, but it's a considerable minority even now) than the US.

Be glad you live in a free and open country like Canada or America.

Free for who?


Separation of church and state means that the state does not interfere with religion and religion does not interfere with the state.

You mean like in the US?


Schools are public institutions and as such the government does not pay for them, the tax payer does, (i.e. the parents of the head scarf wearing little girl). Europen Union laws forbid the new French laws but someone has to take them to court for this to be upheld.

Sorry but the tax payer pays for things in the same was he/she votes for government members. Government is elected, so uses tax payers money as it sees fit. While it's not perfect, you're acting like the government and funding are two seperate entities. Also EU law forbidding this new French law simply porves my point that Europe is not "backwards, bigoted and selfish".

Also only a slightly silly point: if america is so free they should change the pleadge of allegiance to remove god (and in other stuff like that, as it is against athiests and people that believe in polytheism.
damn right, both the currency and the Pledge should be returned to their original, secular form.

That maybe because Sweden has no large Muslim population, in which extremist elements try to influence the education of kids by forcing them to wear certain clothing and behaving in certain ways.

Actually that is not true. Sweden has about 350,000 – 400,000 Iraqis and Iranians plus other Muslims. They form the largest minority group in Sweden.
So because a few Muslims make some very bad choices I guess we should just grind them into the ground. Sounds like Hitler about the Jews during WW2.

Also who are the extremist element trying to influence the education of kids by forcing them to wear certain clothing and behaving in certain ways? That is what the French government is doing; Muslim headgear does not make someone become a terrorist.

Do you also believe that being a Jew means that you are involved in a plot to take over the world financially?

When you allow someone to restrict your neighbour’s freedoms it is the first step to losing your own freedom.

America may seem one way when you listen to the usual jealous anti-American press here in European, and another when you have some experience with it. Yes it is not a perfect country (neither is Canada) but nowhere in the world is as free (especially in religious matters) as North America.
You don't know what freedom is.
Freedom is not only for the elite. Freedom is for everybody.

Actually that is not true. Sweden has about 350,000 – 400,000 Iraqis and Iranians plus other Muslims. They form the largest minority group in Sweden.
So because a few Muslims make some very bad choices I guess we should just grind them into the ground. Sounds like Hitler about the Jews during WW2.

When you allow someone to restrict your neighbour’s freedoms it is the first step to losing your own freedom.
because being iraqi or iranian and being muslim is the same thing?
Yeah right and don't talk about the US and religious tolerance about muslims in the same sentence please.

because being iraqi or iranian and being muslim is the same thing?

About 95% of Iraqis and Iranian are Muslim.

About 95% of Iraqis and Iranian are Muslim.
about 75% of Americans are Christian. does that mean that Christian and American are the same thing? just because the majority of a population subscribes to a certain belief system doesn't mean you can paint with so broad a brush.

There is a big difference between state sponsored intolerance such as in France and individual actions such as in USA. And I will repeat, America (and Canada) are not perfect. I never said they were. They have their fair share of problems too.

about 75% of Americans are Christian. does that mean that Christian and American are the same thing? just because the majority of a population subscribes to a certain belief system doesn't mean you can paint with so broad a brush.

What? Who did I paint with a brush? What brush? All I said was that there were a lot of Muslims living in Sweden and then offered some approximate numbers and countries of origin that were according to the newspaper last week.

What? Who did I paint with a brush? What brush? All I said was that there were a lot of Muslims living in Sweden and then offered some approximate numbers and countries of origin that were according to the newspaper last week.
the problem with your figures is that the percentage of ethnic Iranians and Iraqis that maintain the Muslim faith after emigration is significantly lower than the percentages for those populations living in their native countries. it is more a matter of culture than ethnic make-up.

There is a big difference between state sponsored intolerance such as in France and individual actions such as in USA. And I will repeat, America (and Canada) are not perfect. I never said they were. They have their fair share of problems too.

but you must admit its easy to say freedom of religion and such, when your largest none christian minority makes up like 2 to 3 % of the population.
Whereas in France its between 5 and 10%

Personnaly I am french, i have beard, I like the good wine and the good "baguette et le cul de la cremière". But I think you dream a lot, you must stop being sheeps with the president of USA. I explain: if you don't like him tell him to piss off, and if you like him support him!

Au revoir parce que j'ai pas fait Normal Sup. et l'ENA pour me faire chier avec des discussions stériles a la con!! :headbang: :headbang:
A.J.


Vive Robert Philibou et sa bande!!

Camarade Jed
<<~~>>

but you must admit its easy to say freedom of religion and such, when your largest none christian minority makes up like 2 to 3 % of the population.
Whereas in France its between 5 and 10%
So what?

So what?

so its easy to talk about religious freedom, when all the religions are more or less the same.

so its easy to talk about religious freedom, when all the religions are more or less the same.Especially those so harshly at war with one another here.

Especially those so harshly at war with one another here.

actually not familiar with any religion that is effectively at war with another.
People using religion as an excuse yes, but open hatred?

but you must admit its easy to say freedom of religion and such, when your largest none christian minority makes up like 2 to 3 % of the population.
Whereas in France its between 5 and 10%Actually it is way more than 10% muslims and a little more than 10% jews.

The free world? Which one is that again?

so its easy to talk about religious freedom, when all the religions are more or less the same.
It's easy to respect religious freedom in any circumstance. Let me tell you what you have to do. Are you ready? You have to do...... nothing! Just mind your own business, that's all.

What? Who did I paint with a brush? What brush? All I said was that there were a lot of Muslims living in Sweden and then offered some approximate numbers and countries of origin that were according to the newspaper last week.
Your approximation is very approximate. There are not 95% of muslims in iraq BTW. It's less than 80%.
If I took the number of arabs in France as an approximate number of muslims, Islam would probably be the major religion.

It's easy to respect religious freedom in any circumstance. Let me tell you what you have to do. Are you ready? You have to do...... nothing! Just mind your own business, that's all.Yeah just tolerate the bombs. Bombs are freedom of speech.
Yeah freedom.
It's easy, you just do nothing and let the bombs explode.
You're right, freedom is easy.

Yeah just tolerate the bombs. Bombs are freedom of speech.
Yeah freedom.
It's easy, you just do nothing and let the bombs explode.
You're right, freedom is easy.
Which religion worships bombs, have you been watching planet of the apes sequels?

Actually it is way more than 10% muslims and a little more than 10% jews.

Could you give a source please.
Had to use the CIA factbook and we know how good they are at getting facts straight. lol

Could you give a source please.
Had to use the CIA factbook and we know how good they are at getting facts straight. lolThere are 8 million muslims in France.

It's easy to respect religious freedom in any circumstance. Let me tell you what you have to do. Are you ready? You have to do...... nothing! Just mind your own business, that's all.

ahhh.... that's the answer. I do know that and have specified it earlier.
But if the law says no religious symbols in schools. That does not changes peoples religions, it just asks people to follow the law. They can still wear the headscarf before and after school can't they?

Which religion worships bombs, have you been watching planet of the apes sequels?
I was exagerating in order to make a point.
Freedom of religion is in conflict with many other freedoms and in conflict with security.

Sure it is easy to respect freedom of religion. It is less easy to balance it with everything else when the religious population increases.

ahhh.... that's the answer. I do know that and have specified it earlier.
But if the law says no religious symbols in schools. That does not changes peoples religions, it just asks people to follow the law. They can still wear the headscarf before and after school can't they?
Banning religion just asks people to follow the law. If you want the law to be respected, make the law respectable.

Freedom of religion is in conflict with many other freedoms and in conflict with security.

Sure it is easy to respect freedom of religion. It is less easy to balance it with everything else when the religious population increases.
Just when I was beginning to respect you you come out with this communazi bullshit. When our grandchildren are learning history they will wonder how anyone could think this authoritarian rubbish.

It's easy to respect religious freedom in any circumstance. Let me tell you what you have to do. Are you ready? You have to do...... nothing! Just mind your own business, that's all.

So if one sex is treated like second class citizens, you have no problem with that? Or if it condons mutilation?

TRying to understand your point of view