NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey Europe, why no freedom of religion?

Women in France and now Italy have been charged with crimes because they dared to wear their traditional headscarves in public. This makes me and the people I've talked to in America absolutely appalled! Never in a million years would these laws get upheld here.

Is there like a Bill of Rights over there that says something like this? If not, why not?

Also, how about a little love to the Americans? The First Amendment gets trampled on a lot over flag burning, prayer in schools, separation of church and state, the pledge of allegiance, and whatnot. But at least we've got something that safeguards us from situations like that.

They should read erasmus.

It was state religion at first. Some countries still impose a tax to support their pet church.

Then other countries wised up and saw how abusive this was, but they overreacted by going the other way. The trend was called "anticlericalism" and it was especially strong in Enlightenment France.

So you either had a totalitarian one-church or nothing approach, or an anti-church state.

Nope, no bil of rights.

My great granddad was jailed for refusing to financially the the church of england. I'm so proud of him!

That's why I find it so weird. We don't have a state religion in America- and that's one reason why religion flourishes here!

Hey Europe, why no freedom of religion?

Women in France and now Italy have been charged with crimes because they dared to wear their traditional headscarves in public. This makes me and the people I've talked to in America absolutely appalled! Never in a million years would these laws get upheld here.

Is there like a Bill of Rights over there that says something like this? If not, why not?

Also, how about a little love to the Americans? The First Amendment gets trampled on a lot over flag burning, prayer in schools, separation of church and state, the pledge of allegiance, and whatnot. But at least we've got something that safeguards us from situations like that.

If I am not mistaken this is not about wearing the scarf in public. I think the law is more about not allowing people that are working for the governement in public places and in public schools to wear any obvious religious signs as they have to remain neutral to the citizens and by extention students going to public schools as the peer pressure amongst them isn't allowing freedom of religion to some of them. I find it logical that a teacher, in a school that is not allowed to teach students one religion, is not allowed to show his students his own religious beliefs as he has to stay neutral. It is not like they are forbidding everyone to wear any religious signs.

Is there like a Bill of Rights over there that says something like this? If not, why not?

No, European countries have nothing to ensure freedom of religion.

That's why I find it so weird. We don't have a state religion in America- and that's one reason why religion flourishes here!
Oh you mean like our many presidents of different religions? We have a state religion and it seems to be general Christianity... not that long ago it was protestant christianity, and finally a catholic was accepted...

We still didn't have a Jewish vice president....

And any non-majority religion? Well hell! That ain't happening this century...

If I am not mistaken this is not about wearing the scarf in public. I think the law is more about not allowing people that are working for the governement in public places and in public schools to wear any obvious religious signs as they have to remain neutral to the citizens and by extention students going to public schools as the peer pressure amongst them isn't allowing freedom of religion to some of them. I find it logical that a teacher, in a school that is not allowed to teach students one religion, is not allowed to show his students his own religious beliefs as he has to stay neutral. It is not like they are forbidding everyone to wear any religious signs.

You don't grant freedom of religion to lots of people by taking it away from a few. Besides, explain the Italian one. The lady isn't a teacher or a public servant: she's just out in public with a scarf on.

You don't grant freedom of religion to lots of people by taking it away from a few. Besides, explain the Italian one. The lady isn't a teacher or a public servant: she's just out in public with a scarf on.


Is italy officially catholic?

Oh you mean like our many presidents of different religions? We have a state religion and it seems to be general Christianity... not that long ago it was protestant christianity, and finally a catholic was accepted...

We still didn't have a Jewish vice president....

And any non-majority religion? Well hell! That ain't happening this century...

You have to relate to voters, and if voters think being religious is good, then it's better if you're religous. You sort of prove my point. If Americans couldn't care less about religion (like in Sweden or something), it wouldn't be a big deal and any guy who could relate to the public could get elected, even if he believed Tommy by The Who.

As it stands, my point is that the USA is a religous country, and even if you aren't majority, you still get to practice your religion.

yeah lets kill europe and all those UN bastards for being such liberal commie pinko cunts

You don't grant freedom of religion to lots of people by taking it away from a few. Besides, explain the Italian one. The lady isn't a teacher or a public servant: she's just out in public with a scarf on.

They are not 'taking it away from a few'. When you are working for a neutral organisation with the neutrality being important to that organisation, you have to appear neutral while performing your work. About the Italian case, i don't know the case. I would find it rather stupid to find out it would be just because she was wearing a scarf as the only way to explain an arrest based on that would be using an oudated carnival law (they exist). I would like to see a source for this one, and best a reliable one, to check the circumstances. (last reply, i'm off to bed)

That's why I find it so weird. We don't have a state religion in America- and that's one reason why religion flourishes here!

or, on occasion, does not fllourish. One of the few things im grateful to america for is that living here was what ultimately made me an atheist.

My great granddad was jailed for refusing to financially the the church of england. I'm so proud of him!

How'd he manage that?

yeah lets kill europe and all those UN bastards for being such liberal commie pinko cunts
actually...repression of religious differences...sounds a bit ashcrofty to me...

actually...repression of religious differences...sounds a bit ashcrofty to me...
whatever! BASTARD YURPEANS

whatever! BASTARD YURPEANS
yeah...bastards... with their standard of living and low poverty. With their unions and their refusal to kill innocent Iraqis... (end sarcasm)

America is a teenager compared with Europe. France and Italy have both experienced religious war. The close colonial relationship between France and Algeria has led to a lot of Muslims living in France. Nearly one tenth of all French are Islamic. If one tenth of all Americans were Islamic, America would be pretty nervous too.

They are not 'taking it away from a few'. When you are working for a neutral organisation with the neutrality being important to that organisation, you have to appear neutral while performing your work. About the Italian case, i don't know the case. I would find it rather stupid to find out it would be just because she was wearing a scarf as the only way to explain an arrest based on that would be using an oudated carnival law (they exist). I would like to see a source for this one, and best a reliable one, to check the circumstances. (last reply, i'm off to bed)
You don't have to appear neutral. You just have to *be* neutral. If a teacher in the U.S. wants to pray, that's great. They just can't lead the class in prayer (in a public school).

As for a reliable source for the Italian one, it was in the New York Times this morning. That reliable enough? ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/international/europe/15veil.html?th

You don't have to appear neutral. You just have to *be* neutral. If a teacher in the U.S. wants to pray, that's great. They just can't lead the class in prayer (in a public school).

As for a reliable source for the Italian one, it was in the New York Times this morning. That reliable enough? ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/international/europe/15veil.html?th

yeah..reliable..ny times...I havnt trusted them for a while man...

The large majority of European countries have written constitutions that garantee freedom of religion, right to have a different religion, blablabla.
All states from Europe are also secular states, in which religion is separated from the state.

Since religion must be separated from the public affair of teaching, the French goverment prohibited the usage of religious symbols in public schools. This includes Crucifixes, headscarfs, etc. In no way were people prohibited of having their own religion, they simply can't "advertise" it in public grounds.

Ofcourse, the real reason behind the law that the french made was, as someone said, the fact that 1/10 of the French population is Muslim and poor, two things that mixed up in these days arent very well seen. So the goverment made the law to try to take away religion from people's daily lives, to protect the identity of France, but also its security..

All states from Europe are also secular states, in which religion is separated from the state.

Since religion must be separated from the public affair of teaching, the French goverment prohibited the usage of religious symbols in public schools. This includes Crucifixes, headscarfs, etc. In no way were people prohibited of having their own religion, they simply can't "advertise" it in public grounds.

Exactly - Libertie Equalitie Fraternitie

Hey Europe, why no freedom of religion?

Women in France and now Italy have been charged with crimes because they dared to wear their traditional headscarves in public. This makes me and the people I've talked to in America absolutely appalled! Never in a million years would these laws get upheld here.

Is there like a Bill of Rights over there that says something like this? If not, why not?

Also, how about a little love to the Americans? The First Amendment gets trampled on a lot over flag burning, prayer in schools, separation of church and state, the pledge of allegiance, and whatnot. But at least we've got something that safeguards us from situations like that.
whahahahahaaa oh man/woman... pricelessss




tee hee hee :D

yeah...bastards... with their standard of living and low poverty. With their unions and their refusal to kill innocent Iraqis... (end sarcasm)
thats right. living proof that liberalism never works

whahahahahaaa oh man/woman... pricelessss
tee hee hee :D
you said it. priceless. :rolleyes:

you said it. priceless. :rolleyes:
weeeelll. if somebody is THAT much out of ANY range... I believe people should let him be. It must be a religious job... maybe his/her peole evicted him/her for religious purposes. It must be sumkinda trip to become worthy... only way i can explain it.
EDIT: how's your baby tasting fellow european... mine lacks salt.

Since religion must be separated from the public affair of teaching, the French goverment prohibited the usage of religious symbols in public schools. This includes Crucifixes, headscarfs, etc. In no way were people prohibited of having their own religion, they simply can't "advertise" it in public grounds.Exactly - Libertie Equalitie Fraternitie

Except that unlike Christians, religious Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc. are REQUIRED to abide by certain dress codes. The result of the ban is to force religious people to choose between obeying their religion or the state. The ultimate result will be twofold:

1- An increase in the number of religious schools in France, where Jews and Muslims can maintain their own dress. This is likely to further insulate and isolate these groups from the rest of French society, as well as anger already poor families against the government.

2- Some religious families will continue to send their kids to public schools, while simultaneously feeling that they have to hide their identities and beliefs (and, in this case, actually violate them). This too, is likely to engender resentment against the state.

I do not see how this helps anyone. Liberte and Fraternite indeed.

Except that unlike Christians, religious Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc. are REQUIRED to abide by certain dress codes.

uhm. didn't we just state that this law is applicable to all religions?
and wouldn't that include christianity? true, they don't wear that many obvious signs of their religion (the only one I can think of is the cross necklace...but probably somebody will be sued for wearing a wwjd bracelet, soon) but still. equality granted. at least on paper.

Hey Europe, why no freedom of religion?

Women in France and now Italy have been charged with crimes because they dared to wear their traditional headscarves in public. This makes me and the people I've talked to in America absolutely appalled! Never in a million years would these laws get upheld here.

Is there like a Bill of Rights over there that says something like this? If not, why not?

Also, how about a little love to the Americans? The First Amendment gets trampled on a lot over flag burning, prayer in schools, separation of church and state, the pledge of allegiance, and whatnot. But at least we've got something that safeguards us from situations like that.

First of all you need to learn that Europe is not a single country. What goes on in Greece has little to do with Estonia.

uhm. didn't we just state that this law is applicable to all religions?
and wouldn't that include christianity? true, they don't wear that many obvious signs of their religion (the only one I can think of is the cross necklace...but probably somebody will be sued for wearing a wwjd bracelet, soon) but still. equality granted. at least on paper.
*Read* people's posts before replying to them. Christians are not *required* to wear crosses - and most don't. For us, it's not a problem. These other religions are being given a choice between violating their religious beliefs or breaking the law.

*Read* people's posts before replying to them. Christians are not *required* to wear crosses - and most don't. For us, it's not a problem. These other religions are being given a choice between violating their religious beliefs or breaking the law.
i have *read* the posts.
i still think the cross thing applies here. if somebody believes in christianity, they express it by wearing a cross. it's a statement. 'i believe'.

That's why I find it so weird. We don't have a state religion in America- and that's one reason why religion flourishes here!
Of course.
A state religion is merely a tool the state uses to keep control. So the state church has no real interest in spiritual matters, and any other churches are driven underground.
No, seperation of church and state is necessary for a true flourishing of religious thought and belief.

Oh you mean like our many presidents of different religions? We have a state religion and it seems to be general Christianity... not that long ago it was protestant christianity, and finally a catholic was accepted...

We still didn't have a Jewish vice president....

And any non-majority religion? Well hell! That ain't happening this century...

There is more to determining freedom of religion than who is President.

uhm. didn't we just state that this law is applicable to all religions?
and wouldn't that include christianity? true, they don't wear that many obvious signs of their religion (the only one I can think of is the cross necklace...but probably somebody will be sued for wearing a wwjd bracelet, soon) but still. equality granted. at least on paper.


I may see the equality and the fraternity, but I don't see the Liberty in these laws.

That's why I find it so weird. We don't have a state religion in America- and that's one reason why religion flourishes here!

It's all a matter of personal oppinion. I'd be glad about Germany being laicist (= strict division of state and religion), like France is.

No, European countries have nothing to ensure freedom of religion.

That statement is completely wrong, the vast vast majority do in their own national laws and constitutions. Plus, all the countries that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (which is again the vast majority of European countries) have committed themselves to this document which includes Article 9 which reads as follows:

Part 1: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Part 2: Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Just a pass-by note to clarify Italian case of woman-n-scarf. There is an ancient Italian law (one of the few still signed by a king) that makes compulsory to show your face for identification when a police officer request it. In certain villages majors have the option to enforce this law making it compulsory to go in the public with your face clearly visible at any time. Our government (thank US for that) made a gross fuss about neverfound terrorist activity in Italy so in certain areas majors have enacted this law "for safety reason". Luckily enough our High Court stated that there were no such danger to require this law to be enacted and freed of any charge the woman in question. Another problem is the religious items in classroom. It has needed years of civil rights activists pressure on the government to spoil our classrooms of compulsory crucifixes and compulsory "catholic religion & culture" teaching so many find a damage to their catholicism to let a muslim wear a clear indication of his faith and "advertise it" when is forbidden to the majority. I'm not defending either parts, just explaining how the situation is here... Italy has no state religion, but 70-80% of the electorate is catholic, so interests others than right and wrong are called in.

uhm. didn't we just state that this law is applicable to all religions?
and wouldn't that include christianity? true, they don't wear that many obvious signs of their religion (the only one I can think of is the cross necklace...but probably somebody will be sued for wearing a wwjd bracelet, soon) but still. equality granted. at least on paper.

Except that the law has different RESULTS for different people, because as I JUST STATED, Christianity has no mandated dress code, whereas some other religions (Judaism, Islam, Sikhism) do. How did it affect Christians? "No large crosses". Wow, what a crushing blow. :rolleyes:

i still think the cross thing applies here. if somebody believes in christianity, they express it by wearing a cross. it's a statement. 'i believe'.

Then you're ignorant. Christianity does not REQUIRE one to wear a cross, and furthermore, the new law PERMITS "small crosses". It BANS all religious headgear, which Christians don't wear- and which religious Jews and Muslims DO.

uhm. didn't we just state that this law is applicable to all religions?
and wouldn't that include christianity? true, they don't wear that many obvious signs of their religion (the only one I can think of is the cross necklace...but probably somebody will be sued for wearing a wwjd bracelet, soon) but still. equality granted. at least on paper.

If I made a law that said all penises have to be castrated, that would not be discriminatory, since I would cut of women's penises as well. Never mind that they don't have them, I would still have a neutral law.

Part 2: Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Ah, I see. So the laws banning students from wearing head scarfs are against this document. Fun.

Can I just point out that the Muslim head scarf isn't actually a religious requirement? It's cultural. But that's a technicality.

The law that was passed in France was, I agree, extreme - but understandable none the less. France has always lauded itself for being a secular state, especially where education is concerned. Religion hasn't been banned, just overtly religous gear.
Personally, I'm against it, but I can see where they're coming from.

And everyone know that Liberty, Fraternity, Equality is a joke - come on.

Can I just point out that the Muslim head scarf isn't actually a religious requirement? It's cultural. But that's a technicality.

Ditto with the male headcoverings, but in practice, many of the religious see it as a requirement.

The law that was passed in France was, I agree, extreme - but understandable none the less. France has always lauded itself for being a secular state, especially where education is concerned. Religion hasn't been banned, just overtly religous gear.

Forcing the religious families who won't compromise out of the public schools. Way to punish religious kids, France. Kudos.

Personally, I'm against it, but I can see where they're coming from.

I also understand and sympathize with the emotions and logic behind it- but I think it's an asinine law.

America is a teenager compared with Europe. France and Italy have both experienced religious war. The close colonial relationship between France and Algeria has led to a lot of Muslims living in France. Nearly one tenth of all French are Islamic. If one tenth of all Americans were Islamic, America would be pretty nervous too.
No, cause in America, the Constitution protects the rights of muslims to dress and worship as they please even if it offends or freightens the majority.

i have *read* the posts.
i still think the cross thing applies here. if somebody believes in christianity, they express it by wearing a cross. it's a statement. 'i believe'.

Yes, and students in France are not allowed to wear those either. It's not specifically aimed at Muslims.

No, cause in America, the Constitution protects the rights of muslims to dress and worship as they please even if it offends or freightens the majority.
So can onde do in Europe. The importance is that EVRYONE shall get the same secular education without any religious interfering (except for social SCIENCE then). Furthermore (at least where I live) Islam among immigrants is one of the most segrating forces as it is the last strong religion. Why are americans standing up for banning politial signs in schools as it makes gang-building flourish when religious do the same?

There was a recent case in Britain, where a girl was not allowed to wear a certain type of headscarf in her school - they had specified the type of headscarf she was allowed to wear, but she demanded to be allowed to wear the type of headscarf she chose.

She lost her case.

At first glance, an unfair judgment, but in actual fact it was spot on. She took the school to court with the claim that one type of headscarf is more Muslim than another, which is wrong. Everyone in the school had a uniform conforming to school policy, and so should she.

But yes, I do think the French "no religious symbols" policy is a little to extreme.

And in reply to someone (can't remember who) who posted "religion is separate from the state in all European countries is not entirely correct - the Queen is the head of state and head of the Church of England. That doesn't mean that there is no freedom of religion, though, and there are laws against oppression of religions - just because we have nothing called the Bill of Rights doesn't mean we have no laws to the same effect.

So can onde do in Europe. The importance is that EVRYONE shall get the same secular education without any religious interfering (except for social SCIENCE then). Furthermore (at least where I live) Islam among immigrants is one of the most segrating forces as it is the last strong religion. Why are americans standing up for banning politial signs in schools as it makes gang-building flourish when religious do the same?
EGO sum via verum quod vita. Haud gets ut Deus praeter per mihi. Vacuus mihi illic est haud alius. EGO sum Alpha quod Omega. EGO sum primoris quod permaneo. EGO sum exordium quod terminus. Pro illic eram Abraham , illic eram EGO sum.

There was a recent case in Britain, where a girl was not allowed to wear a certain type of headscarf in her school - they had specified the type of headscarf she was allowed to wear, but she demanded to be allowed to wear the type of headscarf she chose.

She lost her case.

At first glance, an unfair judgment, but in actual fact it was spot on. She took the school to court with the claim that one type of headscarf is more Muslim than another, which is wrong. Everyone in the school had a uniform conforming to school policy, and so should she.

But yes, I do think the French "no religious symbols" policy is a little to extreme.

And in reply to someone (can't remember who) who posted "religion is separate from the state in all European countries is not entirely correct - the Queen is the head of state and head of the Church of England. That doesn't mean that there is no freedom of religion, though, and there are laws against oppression of religions - just because we have nothing called the Bill of Rights doesn't mean we have no laws to the same effect.
Don't vos have Magna Currus?

Don't vos have Magna Currus?

Yes, that meal at the Indian last night is causing me trouble too. Drink plenty of water.

Yes, that meal at the Indian last night is causing me trouble too. Drink plenty of water.
Vos ate an indian permaneo nox noctis? :eek:

Vos ate an indian permaneo nox noctis? :eek:

Yes, I'm afraid so. The hearing's next week.

Yes, I'm afraid so. The hearing's next week.
Vos ire futurus subcribo?

Vos ire futurus subcribo?

I know. I told them to stop the October issue but they went ahead and sent it anyway. Now I've gone over my overdraft limit and my bank manager wants my head on a plate.

I know. I told them to stop the October issue but they went ahead and sent it anyway. Now I've gone over my overdraft limit and my bank manager wants my head on a plate.
Ut est aweful.

Ut est aweful.

About twelve.

You don't have to appear neutral. You just have to *be* neutral. If a teacher in the U.S. wants to pray, that's great. They just can't lead the class in prayer (in a public school).

As for a reliable source for the Italian one, it was in the New York Times this morning. That reliable enough? ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/international/europe/15veil.html?th

Besides from the NY Times being "registered users" only, thus making it restricted access for people just wishing to casually make a look, i find nothing about waning religious rights in Italy. Just about a old law that is still in effect being invoked.
And come on, dont give me any bullshit about the veil being a religious must for muslims. The quran does not ask for a veil, it is a cultural thing. Like a man having four wives, which most people would oppose and is illegal in most nations. But hey, the quran allows it, so it is his religious right, eh?

No, European countries have nothing to ensure freedom of religion.
Oh, please. Don't make me laugh!

Most European countries have larger 'Bills of Rights' than the US, it just has a different name. There is a complete seperation of Church and State in my country (Belgium), which can't be said about the US. For example, both parts of the US Congress still have Chaplains and open their meetings with praying.

It's understandable that people working for the State wear nothing that can link them to a certain Church/Religion. Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to banning religious clothes and such, but you CANNOT call it a violation of the Freedom of Religion.

We have human rights.
Anyway, religion is the opium of the people.
A religion has no right. A corporation has no right either. Only people have rights.

Freedom of drug in the US.

Seriously I think there is a different view on freedom in Europe and in the US. In the US, communities are king. Europe fights communities because they think it is in conflict with the rights of the people.

We have human rights.
Anyway, religion is the opium of the people.
A religion has no right. A corporation has no right either. Only people have rights.

And shouldn't PEOPLE have the right to live their lives how they want and to wear what THEY want to wear?

I think this would be a good read for many of you



The representative of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the ends of all political institutions and may thus be more respected; and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

Article 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may only be founded upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally or through his representative in its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing or causing to be executed any arbitrary order shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner s person shall be severely repressed by law.

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

l1. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military force. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment, and of collection, and the duration of the taxes.

15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

Translated by James Harvey Robinson



#10 establishes freedom of religion with limits. Just like most bill of rights amendments have limits.

I think this would be a good read for many of you

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

#10 establishes freedom of religion with limits. Just like most bill of rights amendments have limits.

But the limit is vague and unclear. What constitutes "disturbing the public order"? How does a headcovering do this? The government, as far as I can tell, hasn't made its case.