NationStates Jolt Archive

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
People have a right to do what they like if they don't agress against the person or property of another.

Banning religion just asks people to follow the law. If you want the law to be respected, make the law respectable.

we're not talking about banning religion. That is very wrong. its a person's choice. But we are talking about france and headscarfs. If in france the law says "no obvious religious symbols" in state schools, well i have no problem with it. If they said "no more Islam" then yes I would defenitely disagree with it.

we're not talking about banning religion. That is very wrong. its a person's choice. But we are talking about france and headscarfs. If in france the law says "no obvious religious symbols" in state schools, well i have no problem with it. If they said "no more Islam" then yes I would defenitely disagree with it.
What's the difference, other than degree? Why should you use govt guns and violence to stop a kid wearing a hood? Why, goddammit?!!??!? I just don't understand how anyone can think this is an acceptable use of violence.

People have a right to do what they like if they don't agress against the person or property of another.

ah ok. Yeah I like the idea as well. But in real terms, it does not apply to anywhere at the moment does it? unfortunetly?

So just to double check:

A person should be free to do what they want as long as it does not harm others?

If that is your argument, then I heartily agree. Just does not seem realistic at the moment unfortunetly

What's the difference, other than degree? Why should you use govt guns and violence to stop a kid wearing a hood? Why, goddammit?!!??!? I just don't understand how anyone can think this is an acceptable use of violence.

I think its just french culture really. they have always wanted religion and gov. to be totally separate.

If that is your argument, then I heartily agree. Just does not seem realistic at the moment unfortunetly
Hmmm. Yes. Rather, it is realistic in that it would work, but not in that it will be achieved anytime soon. People just like agressive violence too much. Our grandchildren will look back on us the same way we look at the medieval church and state.

I think its just french culture really. they have always wanted religion and gov. to be totally separate.
This isn't seperation of religion and state. This is state sponsored atheism.

That law bans all religious symbols in state schools, not just the headscarf.

This isn't seperation of religion and state. This is state sponsored atheism.

Ok, better said, they did not want organised religion present within gov

Libertovania:
This law is about children at school.
I have no problem with mature adults freely exercising their religion.
As a matter of fact, children are influenced by their parents. They are not free. Talking about freedom for 8 year old children is not the same as talking about freedom for 45 year old people.

It is a cultural matter.
Let me explain in this way:
In the US, drinking is forbidden before you are 18, because children are easily influenced by alcohol.
In France, drinking is a culture and not limited at all.

On the other hand, freedom of religion is a culture in the US.
Therefore, children can go on with religion.
In France, children wearing the burka is not acceptable.

Libertovania:
This law is about children at school.
I have no problem with mature adults freely exercising their religion.
As a matter of fact, children are influenced by their parents. They are not free. Talking about freedom for 8 year old children is not the same as talking about freedom for 45 year old people.
Yes, state indoctrination is the REAL meaning of freedom. Who are you, George Orwell?

It is a cultural matter.
Let me explain in this way:
In the US, drinking is forbidden before you are 18, because children are easily influenced by alcohol.
In France, drinking is a culture and not limited at all.

On the other hand, freedom of religion is a culture in the US.
Therefore, children can go on with religion.
In France, children wearing the burka is not acceptable.
In 40's Germany killing Jews was cultural. It was part of who you are. Therefor it is perfectly acceptable. Right?

The Nazi's provide good reducio ad absurdum arguments against those who wish to enforce their will on others, particularly bigots.

Yes, state indoctrination is the REAL meaning of freedom. Who are you, George Orwell?

curious
how is it indoctrination?

In 40's Germany killing Jews was cultural. It was part of who you are. Therefor it is perfectly acceptable. Right?

The Nazi's provide good reducio ad absurdum arguments against those who wish to enforce their will on others, particularly bigots.

HOW THE HELL WAS THAT CULTURAL?????
it was a political party in power

HOW THE HELL WAS THAT CULTURAL?????
it was a political party in power
How is using govt violence to ban an article of cloathing "cultural"?

... and Muslims are not bigoted bastards?No, but you obviously are.

How is using govt violence to ban an article of cloathing "cultural"?

Because since the first french republic there has been a continuing wish to keep religion out of schools. Probably because of the enormous power it had had before in their society.

How is using govt violence to ban an article of cloathing "cultural"?

and they are not banning clothing. they don't allow religious symbols at schools.

curious
how is it indoctrination?
How is it not? I know my school experience (in Scotland) was all about how great the state is. Look how we kicked these guys asses (they don't say that we didn't need to), look how our regulations save us from the market (they don't say that they made things worse), look how great democracy is (they don't tell us about how our freedoms are being voted away and denied with govt violence) and then there's wooly talk of toleration which is framed as "cultures" rather than respecting peoples' rights and scorning any "culture" that denies them.

It's worse in America and England and given Frances' illiberal tendencies I'd imagine it's worse there too. Govt education creates placid sheep, ripe for doing what the govt tells them and working in a mindless job for 40 years.

How is it not? I know my school experience (in Scotland) was all about how great the state is. Look how we kicked these guys asses (they don't say that we didn't need to), look how our regulations save us from the market (they don't say that they made things worse), look how great democracy is (they don't tell us about how our freedoms are being voted away and denied with govt violence) and then there's wooly talk of toleration which is framed as "cultures" rather than respecting peoples' rights and scorning any "culture" that denies them.

It's worse in America and England and given Frances' illiberal tendencies I'd imagine it's worse there too. Govt education creates placid sheep, ripe for doing what the govt tells them and working in a mindless job for 40 years.

good points, but in terms of not allowing religious symbols in schools
Don't see how its indoctrination

Yes, state indoctrination is the REAL meaning of freedom. Who are you, George Orwell?
State indoctrination vs parental indoctrination.
You think that without the state there is freedom?
There are other powers than the state.

actually on a slightly different note.
I like the english system of uniforms.
Everyone is the same. religion does not matter, as all wear the same cloths.
Money does not matter, as all have the same cloths.
It stops people being automatically put into a "group/culture/race"

Don't some American schools forbit the teaching of natural history (regarding the evolution theory) on religious grounds or at least heavily restrict it? (I could be wrong). So, it is a familiar problem in many countries.PRIVATE schools.

State indoctrination vs parental indoctrination.
You think that without the state there is freedom?
There are other powers than the state.
Someone once said, "the French public have never really understood the idea of freedom". Thanks for reinforcing the stereotype.

Someone once said, "the French public have never really understood the idea of freedom". Thanks for reinforcing the stereotype.I don't care what people think about the french.

Go on explain freedom.

PRIVATE schools.Oh so private schools can eat babies. So long as it's not the public ones it's ok?

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 has nothing to do with that though. This is *forced* belittlement of religion on the *individual.* No one is disputing that government and religioun should be separate.

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.

To those who wear it, covering the hair is just as much a part of modesty as covering my breasts is to me. It is the fact that France is denying these girls to be modest and feel comfortable enough to learn that bothers me.

Don't some American schools forbit the teaching of natural history (regarding the evolution theory) on religious grounds or at least heavily restrict it? (I could be wrong). So, it is a familiar problem in many countries.PRIVATE schools.So does the state not control private schools? A state cannot impossibly accept schools teaching nonsense only because they are private. A state has a responsibility for all children of its citizens, and not only for those who visit public schools.
The best example is the thing abot the rejection of teaching about evolution. The perception of evolution at work is as clear as seeing that the sun is bright. I mean, evolution is not a theory, it is a fact that can be easily observed every single day. And a state cannot allow some religiously motivated ignorants to have their children grow up without any reasonable idea about how the world really functions. It cannot be a matter of personal choice to determine what children are supposed to learn, regardless whose children they are.

"I would threaten someone who denied me the practice of my religion also. Again, I ask - would you support a law that said everyone had to eat whatever the school gave them and they served beef or pork to Hindis or Jews? "

It so happens that in French schools they take care to always serve pork AND something else, beef or whatever, so that muslims can eat meat that is allowed to them by their religion.
I don't think it is a coincidence. It shows that French schools care for all their pupils and respect religions... as long as they are dicreet.

In France the school is supposed to be a place different from the society surrounding it: there should be no commercials or advertisements inside the school, nor any message in favour of a specific religion or political opinion.
The idea is to protect pupils from that kind of pressures, and to offer them a kind of neutral environment that should be the same for everyone and where everyone has the same rights.
Outside the school you can express your love of communism and wear a scarf, it's different.

Of course the new system is not perfect and banning the scarf is a difficult decision because if you ban it then some muslim girls who thinks this is essential to their religion won't be able to go to a state school. They will still go to school one way or another because it is compulsory to go to school till the age of 16 so if the government prevent them from going to a state school it will have to offer another solution for these girls.

On the other hand if you don't ban it then muslim girls are still exposed to familial and social pressures to wear a scarf inside the school, while if wearing it is forbidden, then they can escape this pressure, and when they're older and they quit secondary school, they will be ready to take this important decision.
You might have noticed that it is not forbidden to wear a scarf in university.
Why? Because in university, students are adults, they don't need to be "protected" in the same way as children are.

I do think that the law might be a bit too much, but no law at all wouldn't be enough. It is such a tricky question that there is no perfect answer and the answer given by the new law is not the worst that could have been given, far from it.

The better proof of that is that even if not everybody is satisfied (and in France there are always dissatisfied people because complaining is one of our cultural traits) most people (including most muslims) accept the law.

Go on explain freedom.
Freedom is where all interactions, trades etc are voluntary.

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?

If I made a law that said girls couldn't wear bras or shirts to school, that would be ok then? Since they can still wear them before and after school? Never mind that they would be more distracted with worrying about showing off their breasts in class than actually learning.

The thing is you would have to have this law voted and to hear what trade-unions and various organisations have to say about it. If everybody in France accept it, then why not. If they don't, they will go on strike and make demonstrations until the law is cancelled. That's the way it usually works.

Freedom is where all interactions, trades etc are voluntary.
Thanks. I already understood it then.

Freedom is where all interactions, trades etc are voluntary.
Then you agree with me that parents have a power to limit the freedom of the children, don't you?

This is why education should not be controlled by the government, whatever power you give the government, you give to use against you. Now they're forcing people to compromise their religious beliefs in order to get an education... wait, that's already happening here, where voluntary prayer is banned in public education as well as compulsary. Who called us the united theocracy of america? Please kick yourself in the nuts so I don't have to bother you short sighted, narrow minded, toe the line liberal. Seperation of church and state, as well as the freedom of religion were meant to protect churches of all religious beliefs from the state, not the other way around...

This is why education should not be controlled by the government, whatever power you give the government, you give to use against you. Now they're forcing people to compromise their religious beliefs in order to get an education... wait, that's already happening here, where voluntary prayer is banned in public education as well as compulsary. Who called us the united theocracy of america? Please kick yourself in the nuts so I don't have to bother you short sighted, narrow minded, toe the line liberal. Seperation of church and state, as well as the freedom of religion were meant to protect churches of all religious beliefs from the state, not the other way around...In the US, perhaps.
In France it was meant to protect the people from the church.

BTW, liberal does not mean shit in France.

This is why education should not be controlled by the government, whatever power you give the government, you give to use against you. Now they're forcing people to compromise their religious beliefs in order to get an education... wait, that's already happening here, where voluntary prayer is banned in public education as well as compulsary. Who called us the united theocracy of america? Please kick yourself in the nuts so I don't have to bother you short sighted, narrow minded, toe the line liberal. Seperation of church and state, as well as the freedom of religion were meant to protect churches of all religious beliefs from the state, not the other way around...The separation of state and church was meant to protect the freedom of the people from religious indoctrination in the way it was common in Europe through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Era. The US constitution was written in a time when the power of the churches was cut back in the great revolutions of that time. A state can only accept one loyalty.

Freedom of religion was in fact enacted to protect people from the church. No one gives a shit about the church. It'll do just fine for itself without government help.

This is why education should not be controlled by the government, whatever power you give the government, you give to use against you. Now they're forcing people to compromise their religious beliefs in order to get an education... wait, that's already happening here, where voluntary prayer is banned in public education as well as compulsary.

This is completely untrue if you are talking about the US. Voluntary prayer *led by a teacher or administrator* is banned. A student bowing their head in prayer all on their own (or holding hands with some other students) is not banned in any way.

Who called us the united theocracy of america? Please kick yourself in the nuts so I don't have to bother you short sighted, narrow minded, toe the line liberal. Seperation of church and state, as well as the freedom of religion were meant to protect churches of all religious beliefs from the state, not the other way around...

Actually, they were meant to protect both. Combination of church and state leads to corruption and problems in both entities, as well as the denial of freedom to many people. The point is that the state should have no control over the church and the church should have no control over the state. Period.

Or the government there is full of bigoted bastards who think all Muslims must be terrorists.
Dude are u muslim? I agree there should be no discrimination but just speaking about it on a forum or message board ain't gonna help. We need concrete actn to follow. And yah the damn french gov is :sniper: nuts.

By taking away the religious freedom of each and every little girl who feels the need to wear it. Now, if their parents cannot afford to educate them some other way, those girls must choose between their faith and their education.

This is idiotic. Secularism in public schools means that the schools themselves cannot support religion. What an individual student does bears no reflection on the views of the school. They are abridging religious rights, not enforcing secularism.
Headscarfs are not required to practice any muslim religion. France has violated no rights, simply made you choose between an optional religious statement or education. If Islamic religion required you to wear a headscarf, then you could argue that religious right had been violated. Jews can't wear their caps either, that doesn't make them less religious. Feeling you need something and actually needing something are two completely different things, and sometimes people need to be taught the difference.

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.


I am so sorry my friend but you have been misled somewhere. The public school system smacks of religious oppression. When i went to school i saw the ten commandments, we prayed, we sang the pledge of alligence, and we basiccly were forced to follow christianity while in school. Now, none of these things are done and if you do them then you are suspended or if your a teacher then your fired(worst case) and someone sues you because thier children heard the name of god. When i went to school you didnt hear about kids killing teachers or other kids, you didnt hear about teenagers having babies in school, why? Because everyone was so damn affraid of going to hell that if it did happen (so little that you didnt even notice) noone talked about it, or they were made an example of. Now almost everyday i hear about some killing or some teenage girl getting pregnant, or just in general some pretty bad stuff. Dont get me wrong i have done some pretty bad stuff myself(i have served along time in the military) and i am not a religous person so to speak, but i do know where the limit is and why. The american school system is the one of the worst in the world, educational levels are so low that in some schools the government is forced to intervene. Yet you want to tell us that american schools are free and good (not perfect), the fact is that america is a hypocritical nation. The ideals are "do what we say not what we do". And dont even let me get started about the higher education, ie. universities! In short your wrong, research some more.

My children will be home-schooled for the most part, in an effort to allow them to make their own free choice, between my beliefs and My wifes,or to chose their own, and in an attempt to allow them an EDUCATION. No one, not even I, will force a belief on my children.

Big Jim p, that could end up being a problem. Children must have someone to learn from, someone who imposes thier ideas on them (though not frocfully). If you do not teach them what is right and wrong then someone else will and that could devistating to you and your childrens grow. It is and has always been the responsability of the parents to introduce to thier children the world and to pass on what little advice and encouragement that they can. I plead with you Big Jim p, teach your children what you(and your wife) think is right and wrong, in time your child will begin to mature and develope thier own ideas, even then be strong examples to them of what is right. Always be a good example, whether or not you like it , your children will learn from you be it right or wrong. In the end just remember, noone is perfect and your kids will make mistakes, just be thier for them. And yes i have a daughter.

Dude are u muslim? I agree there should be no discrimination but just speaking about it on a forum or message board ain't gonna help. We need concrete actn to follow. And yah the damn french gov is :sniper: nuts.

No, not Muslim. Christian actually. =) (and not a dude). I just believe that all people should have the right to their beliefs and to practice said beliefs without restriction as long as they are harming no one.

I am so sorry my friend but you have been misled somewhere. The public school system smacks of religious oppression. When i went to school i saw the ten commandments, we prayed, we sang the pledge of alligence, and we basiccly were forced to follow christianity while in school. Now, none of these things are done

So, the religious indoctrination (aka religious oppression) has been done away with. What are you complaining about exactly? Having the 10 commandments in school or having forced prayer or being "forced to follow christianity while in school" is just as bad as not being allowed to be christian. What exactly is your complaint here?

and if you do them then you are suspended or if your a teacher then your fired(worst case) and someone sues you because thier children heard the name of god.

A student who chooses to pray is not suspended. A student who chooses to talk to another student about god (as long as it is not during class time, when they should be paying attention) is not punished. A *teacher* who attempts to use *class time* to preach, is punished - as they should be.

When i went to school you didnt hear about kids killing teachers or other kids, you didnt hear about teenagers having babies in school, why? Because everyone was so damn affraid of going to hell that if it did happen (so little that you didnt even notice) noone talked about it, or they were made an example of.

Plenty of teenagers had babies - they were just forced out of school and into forced marriage rather than giving them any sort of chance at all at having a life. The amount of teenage sex really wasn't all that different from now, it was just more secretive.

Now almost everyday i hear about some killing or some teenage girl getting pregnant, or just in general some pretty bad stuff. Dont get me wrong i have done some pretty bad stuff myself(i have served along time in the military) and i am not a religous person so to speak, but i do know where the limit is and why.

The military automatically means you do bad things? Interesting, I'll have to mention that to the men and women in the military that I know.

If you really believe that kids are killing people because they don't get forced to pray in schools, you really are pretty naive though.

The american school system is the one of the worst in the world, educational levels are so low that in some schools the government is forced to intervene.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but yes, education is often low in this country. Sometimes it is because of the "bad" area in which the schools are located, sometimes it is because teachers are encouraged to not teach certain things. It still has nothing to do with whether or not students are allowed to practice their religions.

Yet you want to tell us that american schools are free and good (not perfect), the fact is that america is a hypocritical nation. The ideals are "do what we say not what we do". And dont even let me get started about the higher education, ie. universities! In short your wrong, research some more.

The topic is allowing freedom of religion - not whether or not the education system itself is good. By the way, what exactly is inherently wrong with the universities in this country? People from all over the world come to study at them.

In the US, drinking is forbidden before you are 18, because children are easily influenced by alcohol.

No -- because you have not fully grown/developed until you're around 18 and alcohol stunts growth. And then there's all the drunk-driving incidents I believe.

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

Dangerous ones only.

So you're a supporter of fascism now?

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Well, facism is as far right as you can go.... ;)

The only opinion that should be banned is that of not wanting people to share opinions. :)

The military automatically means you do bad things? Interesting, I'll have to mention that to the men and women in the military that I know.


The topic is allowing freedom of religion - not whether or not the education system itself is good. By the way, what exactly is inherently wrong with the universities in this country? People from all over the world come to study at them.

First off , READ what i wrote well, please. I never said or implied that if you were in the service you did bad things rather i said "I" did bad things while in the service.

Second, There is alot wrong with our universities. The reason why alot of people from all over come here for college is because ours is one of the easiest to graduate from. Almost any knuckle head can walk away with a degree in the states. Quite sad i think. And believ me i should know, i have my degree in french and i didnt really do any school work. I was in the AROTC and i knew alot of the Prof's and i partied and drank and had lots of sex and did very little studying. By all rights i should have been kicked out, rather i made sure i showed up everyday and took the exams required and i passed. You know the old saying: "A Med student who graduates at the bottom of his/her class still gets to be a doctor". In some Euro universities this is not the case (sometimes yes but by and large no). And lets not forget athletes in the past both in High school and college who were passed mereley on thier athletic ability not scolastic. So like i said lots of problems. On top of all this we have to pay for the eduacation, in some Euro nations not so! People from othr nations come here for school cause its easier, plain and simple. And your right this is about religous freedoms in school, but my thread was in response to another person who claimed the US had the best schools or something like that.

Well, facism is as far right as you can go.... ;)

The only opinion that should be banned is that of not wanting people to share opinions. :)

And even that opinion shouldn't be banned - only its enforcement should be.

No -- because you have not fully grown/developed until you're around 18 and alcohol stunts growth. And then there's all the drunk-driving incidents I believe.

How come this growth stunt dos not effect countries who allow thier children to drink before 18?

How come this growth stunt dos not effect countries who allow thier children to drink before 18?

Just curious, but can you tell me some countries where you don't have to be 18? Anywhere decent? And do they only mean you can start at say...16 instead? I'm Aussie, so forgive my frustration at still being checked for ID in the US when I'm closer to 30 than 21 and was drinking openly ( and responsibly ) in my own country at 18. :)

Just curious, but can you tell me some countries where you don't have to be 18? Anywhere decent? And do they only mean you can start at say...16 instead? I'm Aussie, so forgive my frustration at still being checked for ID in the US when I'm closer to 30 than 21 and was drinking openly ( and responsibly ) in my own country at 18. :)


Well, in France children often drink wine at home with thier parents or family. Also most places in france will not card you at all. In belgium the age is very low, though i think it is 16. Italy is the same, children drink at home and bars/cafe/clubs rarley card. I am sure there are lote of (mostly Euro) countries like this as well as nordic and Eastern bloc.

Well, in France children often drink wine at home with thier parents or family. Also most places in france will not card you at all. In belgium the age is very low, though i think it is 16. Italy is the same, children drink at home and bars/cafe/clubs rarley card. I am sure there are lote of (mostly Euro) countries like this as well as nordic and Eastern bloc.

Ah, so most of the west then. Do you mean it's legal though, or just people don't really bother too much? I was actually drinking ( and being taught how to handle alcohol ) long before legal drinking age myself.

I've been to a few countries and only the US has 'carded' me really. ( and Ironically, it's the country I've definitely done the most drinking in. ) It always just struck me that the US is very paranoid about alcohol. Did try to ban it once and you guys do have very puritan religious roots after all. Ah well, so long as I can still buy a brew.:)

Now if only you guys could get some decent beer... ;););)

god DAMN you, they banned ALL religious symbols in classrooms in a simple attempt to keep religion away from children in their impressionable youth. they SHOULD repeal it seeing as there are lives on the line if they don't, but the law is not malicious or facistic, get it straight!

Second, There is alot wrong with our universities. The reason why alot of people from all over come here for college is because ours is one of the easiest to graduate from. Almost any knuckle head can walk away with a degree in the states. Quite sad i think. And believ me i should know, i have my degree in french and i didnt really do any school work.

How many people do you think come to this country to pursue a degree in French? I agree that degrees like that are very easy to get. Now, try to get one in engineering, physics, or mathematics - I can guarantee you it is much more difficult. People come from other countries to our schools because we are at the cutting edge of technology and they wish to earn technology degrees and be a part of the research here. You can't base everything you know about American schools off of a liberal arts degree.

People from othr nations come here for school cause its easier, plain and simple.

I doubt that. Especially with your med school example - since students who cannot pass med school here just go to other countries instead.

And your right this is about religous freedoms in school, but my thread was in response to another person who claimed the US had the best schools or something like that.

No, what they said was that US and Candadian schools were better in respect to religious freedoms than other countries.

How many people do you think come to this country to pursue a degree in French? I agree that degrees like that are very easy to get. Now, try to get one in engineering, physics, or mathematics - I can guarantee you it is much more difficult. People come from other countries to our schools because we are at the cutting edge of technology and they wish to earn technology degrees and be a part of the research here. You can't base everything you know about American schools off of a liberal arts degree.

Bullshit.
People come to the US because there is a lot of money there and because the language is english.
There are more students in the EU than in the US.
And the US is not at the cutting edge of technilogy, certainly not universities.
Anyway, that's what they tell you. Here they tell otherwise. In France they tell the french universities are the best in the world.

I think it is all about propaganda and culture.

Bullshit.
People come to the US because there is a lot of money there and because the language is english.
There are more students in the EU than in the US.
And the US is not at the cutting edge of technilogy, certainly not universities.
Anyway, that's what they tell you. Here they tell otherwise. In France they tell the french universities are the best in the world.

I think it is all about propaganda and culture.
having just spent over a year looking at schools in 5 countries (including the US) in which to potential study for my post-graduate degree and training, i can tell you that the United States has more schools with top-level technologies, fascilities, and faculty then any other nation in the world today. there are certainly also some brilliant and top-quality schools in other nations, but the United States is not making an outrageous boast by stating that it runs some of the best scientific institutions in the world.

for instance, i was told, point blank, by the administrators at a top German university that if i wished to pursue a career in neurobiology i should focus on schools in the US, because they had better programs and were better equipped to track me for that career. Oxford told me candidly that if i wanted to study bioethics i might want to go to a US school (they recommended UCSF) for the "bio" part, and use their remarkable philosophy department for the "ethics" half.

i don't believe the hype, i believe the professors. i believe the scientists, and i believe the professionals who evaluate their own programs with honesty. the United States is at the top of biotechnology, period, and every reputable international institution acknowledges that. it doesn't mean the US is smarter, better, or the only country that is doing amazing and inovative work, it's simply the raw evaluation of who is doing the most the fastest and with the greatest success.

Ah, so most of the west then. Do you mean it's legal though, or just people don't really bother too much? I was actually drinking ( and being taught how to handle alcohol ) long before legal drinking age myself.

I've been to a few countries and only the US has 'carded' me really. ( and Ironically, it's the country I've definitely done the most drinking in. ) It always just struck me that the US is very paranoid about alcohol. Did try to ban it once and you guys do have very puritan religious roots after all. Ah well, so long as I can still buy a brew.:)

Now if only you guys could get some decent beer... ;););)No It's 100% legal here. A 8 year old child can go and buy Vodka. So long as he has the money, there is no problem, it's legal.
There are no limit on this.
I think it is a matter of culture.
And new Genoa : no, alcohol does not create growth problems.

In the US, you can't stand children getting drunk, but if you are an adult, it is ok because you are mature.
A lot of french people think the US is a dictatorship because of that. I have to tell them it is their culture and that France is not any better, but they wouldn't believe me because they are too close minded.

I see the same problem here. In France we can't stand 8 year old children wearing the burka. It is our culture, but children getting drunk from now and then is ok.
Religion is dangerous from our point of view. Maybe not from yours, but in France we learnt it the hard way. The catholic church kept the country in the dark age for more than 1000 years. We don't want religions to be indoctrinated in our children minds, be is islam or christianity or satanism or anything. They may inform themselves about it with their parents, but in school, they will come as children and they will not display their religion or political ideology. They can get drunk if they like it though.

Freedom is for mature adults. Uneducated children would just create chaos if they got a free go. They need an education for being free.

having just spent over a year looking at schools in 5 countries (including the US) in which to potential study for my post-graduate degree and training, i can tell you that the United States has more schools with top-level technologies, fascilities, and faculty then any other nation in the world today. there are certainly also some brilliant and top-quality schools in other nations, but the United States is not making an outrageous boast by stating that it runs some of the best scientific institutions in the world.

for instance, i was told, point blank, by the administrators at a top German university that if i wished to pursue a career in neurobiology i should focus on schools in the US, because they had better programs and were better equipped to track me for that career. Oxford told me candidly that if i wanted to study bioethics i might want to go to a US school (they recommended UCSF) for the "bio" part, and use their remarkable philosophy department for the "ethics" half.

i don't believe the hype, i believe the professors. i believe the scientists, and i believe the professionals who evaluate their own programs with honesty. the United States is at the top of biotechnology, period, and every reputable international institution acknowledges that. it doesn't mean the US is smarter, better, or the only country that is doing amazing and inovative work, it's simply the raw evaluation of who is doing the most the fastest and with the greatest success.This is asolutely true. In France they tell that the US universities are better for biotechnology and medecine as well.
They tell, however, that the french 'grandes ecoles' are best for studying physics, mathematics, politics or computer science. The teaching are in french though and foreigners have to know french if they want to study here.
I think each propaganda focus on the things it does best and doesn't tell about the other things.

This is asolutely true. In France they tell that the US universities are better for biotechnology and medecine as well.
They tell, however, that the french 'grandes ecoles' are best for studying physics, mathematics, politics or computer science. The teaching are in french though and foreigners have to know french if they want to study here.
I think each propaganda focus on the things it does best and doesn't tell about the other things.
i hate to say it, but my advisor (who is European) told me not to bother looking at French schools for post-graduate work, even though i was interested in going there simply because i liked what i saw of France when i visited it on vacation. i have yet to hear any scientist from any country name France as a leader in any of the fields you suggest, and the US is most certainly France's superior in computer science in particular.

i don't want it to sound like i am bashing France here, but i feel that there is a big difference between propaganda and measureable success and standing in a field. France is not a world leader in "hard" sciences, though it is probably among the top 10 of nations over all, and if you base your evaluations on the propaganda you are going to get a very inaccurate picture. people who are considering serious study in the sciences need to look at the caliber of institutions, not how strongly the nations advocate their own educational prowess, and the objective caliber of the institutions is currently very biased toward the US. that may change, and Japan and Germany in particular are very close to surpassing the US in several areas, but for now an aspiring scientist will probably have more US schools to seriously consider than they will have schools in any other nation.

i have yet to hear any scientist from any country name France as a leader in any of the fields you suggest, and the US is most certainly France's superior in computer science in particular.
Probably the use of civilian nuclear power plants.
They are also quite good at the pharmaceutical industry.
Though of course the US is leading. It is bigger, it has more people, and it has even a bigger economic output than any other country.
So it is not surprissingly the leading country in most fields of sience.
And in sports. Though China is catching up in that field.

i hate to say it, but my advisor (who is European) told me not to bother looking at French schools for post-graduate work, even though i was interested in going there simply because i liked what i saw of France when i visited it on vacation. i have yet to hear any scientist from any country name France as a leader in any of the fields you suggest, and the US is most certainly France's superior in computer science in particular.

i don't want it to sound like i am bashing France here, but i feel that there is a big difference between propaganda and measureable success and standing in a field. France is not a world leader in "hard" sciences, though it is probably among the top 10 of nations over all, and if you base your evaluations on the propaganda you are going to get a very inaccurate picture. people who are considering serious study in the sciences need to look at the caliber of institutions, not how strongly the nations advocate their own educational prowess, and the objective caliber of the institutions is currently very biased toward the US. that may change, and Japan and Germany in particular are very close to surpassing the US in several areas, but for now an aspiring scientist will probably have more US schools to seriously consider than they will have schools in any other nation.The problem is that how good a university is is totally subjective.
Success is not measurable, so it is all about which propaganda shouts the most.
From what I've heard, computer science is more empirical in France's and more technical in the US' univertities.

How come this growth stunt dos not effect countries who allow thier children to drink before 18?

Excessive drinking.

Probably the use of civilian nuclear power plants.
They are also quite good at the pharmaceutical industry.
Though of course the US is leading. It is bigger, it has more people, and it has even a bigger economic output than any other country.
So it is not surprissingly the leading country in most fields of sience.
And in sports. Though China is catching up in that field.
exactly, that's what i am saying. it's not necessarily that the US is smarter or anything, just that because of the resources available we have better research and educational opportunities here than pretty much anywhere. we also attract the top minds, which is a snake-eating-its-tail phenomenon; the more big names you attract the higher your prestige, and the more big names want to come work for you. thus we have attracted top minds from other countries to America, and because they are here we attract more top students who want to study under the top minds.

Excessive drinking.Look : excessive drinking is dangerous. So the US bans drinking under 18.
Religious extremism is dangerous -> France bans religious symbols in school.

The only difference is cultural.

exactly, that's what i am saying. it's not necessarily that the US is smarter or anything, just that because of the resources available we have better research and educational opportunities here than pretty much anywhere. we also attract the top minds, which is a snake-eating-its-tail phenomenon; the more big names you attract the higher your prestige, and the more big names want to come work for you. thus we have attracted top minds from other countries to America, and because they are here we attract more top students who want to study under the top minds.Actually, there are more opportunities in the EU, because there are more universities.

exactly, that's what i am saying. it's not necessarily that the US is smarter or anything, just that because of the resources available we have better research and educational opportunities here than pretty much anywhere. we also attract the top minds, which is a snake-eating-its-tail phenomenon; the more big names you attract the higher your prestige, and the more big names want to come work for you. thus we have attracted top minds from other countries to America, and because they are here we attract more top students who want to study under the top minds.
Plus the fact that you benefit from the British empire which spread the English language all around the world and your position as only remaining super-power which leds to most people in the world to learn English.
How many people are speaking French (ok, some in Africa)? How many are speaking German (ok, a lot in Europe actually)? How many are speaking Japanese (ok, in East Asia some people)?
But English is just the lingua franca of the world. That is furthernmore a factor aside the super-power status of the US which contributes to the "American Empire" and the American hegemony.
I´m not against American hegemony of the world if the US uses it wisely. It is better America leads than other countries -like China or Russia.

Plus the fact that you benefit from the British empire which spread the English language all around the world and your position as only remaining super-power which leds to most people in the world to learn English.
How many people are speaking French (ok, some in Africa)? How many are speaking German (ok, a lot in Europe actually)? How many are speaking Japanese (ok, in East Asia some people)?
also very true. English is the language of science, replacing even German these days, and that makes it much more attractive for people to study with Americans or in America.

also very true. English is the language of science, replacing even German these days, and that makes it much more attractive for people to study with Americans or in America.I don't think it has anything to do with english being a scientific language, or miles replacing kilometers.
It has to do with life in the US. In order to live there, you have to know the language. English is more spread than french or german.
Indian people, who want to study in a foreign country will choose the US instead of France or Germany, because they know english.
West african people will choose France because they know french.

also very true. English is the language of science, replacing even German these days, and that makes it much more attractive for people to study with Americans or in America.
Your reference to German is very kind. Though except in a period at the begining of the 20 th century it wasn´t that important anyway.
In the 17 th, 18 th and even parts of the 19 th century French was the lingua franca of continental Europe. French absolutism and latter Napoleon as well as the split of Germany in many small states while the emperor had no real power anymore (one result of the thirty-year war 1618-1648) was giving the French language this position. Also partly colonialism. But the British were better with that - ending finally the French dominance.
Before the 17 th century by the way Latin was the lingua franca and language of science. Even today scientific terms (even in English) have Latin origin.

Your reference to German is very kind. Though except in a period at the begining of the 20 th century it wasn´t that important anyway.
In the 17 th, 18 th and even parts of the 19 th century French was the lingua franca of continental Europe. French absolutism and latter Napoleon as well as the split of Germany in many small states while the emperor had no real power anymore (one result of the thirty-year war 1618-1648) was giving the French language this position. Also partly colonialism. But the British were better with that - ending finally the French dominance.
Before the 17 th century by the way Latin was the lingua franca and language of science. Even today scientific terms (even in English) have Latin origin.
well, of course Latin is still used for nomenclature, and i think it always will be. but it is certainly not the language of science, since non-nomenclature terms, procedural concepts, and the general communication in the sciences hasn't been conducted in Latin for (as you said) quite some time.

i gave the nod to German because it was what was used primarily just before English became dominant, not because i was trying to claim it's the only other language that has been dominant in science...i was just saying that English has replaced what was previously the dominant language, and i wasn't trying to go back in time to the languages that German replaced. sorry if that was unclear.

Look : excessive drinking is dangerous. So the US bans drinking under 18.
Religious extremism is dangerous -> France bans religious symbols in school.

The only difference is cultural.

Wearing a scarf isn't religious extremism.

Wearing a scarf isn't religious extremism.Drinking a beer isn't excessive drinking.

I will tell you something. If this ban does stop one parent from bullying one child into wearing a religious symbol, I think is it well worth banning it on everybody.

well, of course Latin is still used for nomenclature, and i think it always will be. but it is certainly not the language of science, since non-nomenclature terms, procedural concepts, and the general communication in the sciences hasn't been conducted in Latin for (as you said) quite some time..
Yes, but you still see the relicts of it.

i gave the nod to German because it was what was used primarily just before English became dominant, not because i was trying to claim it's the only other language that has been dominant in science...i was just saying that English has replaced what was previously the dominant language, and i wasn't trying to go back in time to the languages that German replaced. sorry if that was unclear.
German was rather used for some technical sciences as I remember. Though it was never that dominant - even not in the scientific field as before French and Lation and today English were.

Drinking a beer isn't excessive drinking.

Correct.

I will tell you something. If this ban does stop one parent from bullying one child into wearing a religious symbol, I think is it well worth banning it on everybody.

But you're banning a human being's right to freedom of expression.

But you're banning a human being's right to freedom of expression.
So should we allow children to come to school with swastikas on their clothes, wearing KKK uniforms, wearing shirts that promote sex, violence, and/or drugs, and similarly offensive things since they have fredom of expression? (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that wearing a scarf is as bad as the things I've listed, it's just to prove the point that freedom of expression needs some boundaries)

But you're banning a human being's right to freedom of expression.No.
Everybody has the right to express himself. It's just that there is a time and a place for that. School is not the right place.