Illegal to show your religion in France.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Voltron, May 25, 2004.

  1. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #1
    http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news...4440002626563&dt=20040525144400&w=RTR&coview=
    I wonder is Frances constitutional separation of church and state written to protect religion from government and not to protect government from religion like ours is?
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
  3. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #3
    Yes because obviously only religion causes bad things. And her scarf is quite obviously a threat to a secular government.

    "It's to protect the people from religion."
    To me that argument is getting old. Its a liberal way of saying we don't like what you think so we don't think you should get to say it, and we'll use the classification of "religion" as a way to justify that.

    Why is it that someone expressing their views on something is unnaceptable if they happen to believe in God, but someone who is say, an environmentalist is treated the same way?

    Both are belief systems. Both have members who use their views to justify violence. Yet no one goes around saying we need to protect people from environmentalism.

    Religion isn't a bad thing. A religion is just a belief system. Just like any other belief system it can be abused by those in power.

    A government is supposed to protect the rights of the people. In this case they are trying to deny freedom of expression to one group of people because it might lead to disagreement and other problems.

    I understand and agree that the government shouldn't sponsor any one religion, and as far as I'm concerned THAT is what seperation of church and state is. It would be one thing if the French said you can't teach that one religion is best in schools. Its another to deny a person the right to go to school without also demanding that they give up a part of their religion that isn't harming anyone. I mean it would be one thing to ban people from bringing guns to school, even if their religion said they must have a gun at all times. That is a safety issue obviously. But this is a head-scarf. It doesn't hurt anyone. If I see a Muslim girl with a head-scarf on I don't suddenly feel like I'm being forced to convert.

    Shouldn't we encourage people to be open and understanding of other cultures? Isn't that how you avoid hatred and conflict? Through understanding.

    Basically these kids are being told you have to choose between your religion and being educated. What happens next if we let this keep going? You start to have no Muslim children in schools, they either can't go to school or can only attend private schools. Then what? Only the wealthy will be able to afford it, so what is happening is that poor Muslim children will either have to give up their faith or their future. Personally I find that choice abhorent.

    I'd rather have my kids go to school with people of diverse backgrounds. I'd rather have them learn that they are people too, not just some nameless mass who get lumped in with people like Osama Bin-Ladin. You start dividing people and you will only breed hatred and distrust.

    To me France might as well have said "Muslims not Welcome Here". Certainly the U.S. especially in recent weeks have shown that we have a ways to go in healing the rifts we have with the Middle East. What those soliders did in Abu Gharib is the result of viewing Muslims not as people but as something less. But at least in this country a Muslim has the right not only to worship but to attend school as well.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Yes they do.
    Or have you not heard the statement to the effect of 'Many people whose color used to be red now claim to be green" from the conservative right?

    Note: I'm not saying anything about the France/headscarves thing here, I don't like the idea of a government clamping down on personal freedom.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    I was talking historically, not hysterically.
    Even though the French have also banned skull-caps and crucifixes, I too believe it is foolish and short-sighted. They might as well ban tattoos, brown sandals, organic food, Macs - anything which is an outward indication of any paricular affiliation.
     
  6. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #6
    As a soverign nation they are entitled to do as they please. If they want to make it illegal to display your religion. so be it. Different cultures have different values.
     
  7. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #7
    Thank you, Neserk.

    Since its revolution, France has been adamant about the separation of state and religion. Its history of dominance by the Catholic church (prior to the revolution) influences this belief. (By the way, I am a Catholic.)

    Although it seems very strange to U.S. citizens, the French have made a decision that its public schools will stay secular.

    There is no prohibition to practice any religion you like in France. You just can not display religious symbols in a school environment.

    In the U.S., many schools will not let you wear certain "gang" related colors, or certain clothes styles because they are associated with gangs. In France, they are concerned with radical Islamic teachings, and radical clerics. I guess we don't seem to mind that here.

    [I think this is the tenth time I have been forced to defend the French on this web site. I think some rich Frenchman owes me an all-expense paid trip to Paris, non?]
     
  8. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #8
    No problem.

    Me too? My husband and I would love to go to France!
     
  9. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #9
    You mean the 'watermelon' reference? ;)

    What do you consider personal freedom? 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th? Do we get to pick and choose, are all considered lumped together?

    Read an article, don't remember where, that said those on the left love the 1st and 4th amendments and hate the 2nd and 5th, while those on the right love the 2nd and 5th, and hate the 1st and 4th. Too bad we are going back and forth from left to right in our politics, pretty soon, we are going to be left with nothing. :eek: :eek:
     
  10. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #10
    But doesn't that infringe on their people's human right to display and worship to whichever god/deity/s they choose? How could you be so insensitive towards human rights? :eek: :p
     
  11. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #11
    What revolution?
    Wasn't it in 1527 that Charles the VIII King of France invaded, conquered, and took possession of Rome, the head of the Catholic church for the purpose of uniting all of Europe under one Christian banner?

    Wasn't Charles the VIII that refused to allow the pope to permit King Henry a divorce from his wife, Charles Aunt, who then broke from the Catholic church creating the Church of England?

    Wasn't Charles in charge of the Pope who was in charge of the church that excommunicated Martin Luther for criticizing the church thus started the refomation movement which caused Luther to start the Lutherean church?

    BTW during this time period there was a controversy about priests playing with altar boys. They were more upset with the break from celibacy than with the fact of them playing with altar boys since apparently that kind of stuff was common over there back then.

    I think I'm missing something here?
     
  12. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #12
    ...since we are talking about schools and religion...

    Little Tommy's Report Card

    Little Tommy was doing very poorly in math. His parents had tried everything...tutors, flash cards, special learning centers...In short, everything that they could think of to improve Tommy's grades. As a last ditch effort, they enrolled Tommy in the local Catholic school.

    On the first day at the new school, Tommy came home with a very serious look on his face. He didn't even kiss his mother hello, but walked straight to his room and started studying. Books and paper were soon spread out all over the room with Tommy hard at work.

    His mother was amazed. She called him down to dinner and to her shock, the minute he was done, he marched right back to his room without a word and started hitting the books as hard as before. This went on day after day while his mother tried to understand what was making the difference.

    Finally, little Tommy brought home his report card. He placed it quietly on the table and walked directly to his room to hit the books again. With great curiousity, Tommy's mom opened the report card, and to her delight, little Tommy got an A in Math! She had to know why the Catholic school was so different, so she went into Tommy's room.

    "So, what was it? Was it the nuns?", she said.

    Little Tommy kept his eyes to the ground and shook his head. "No."

    "Was it the books....the discipline, the structure, the uniform. WHAT was it?", she asked.

    Little Tommy looked at her and finally answered, "Well, on the first day of school, when I saw that guy nailed to the plus sign I knew they weren't fooling around."
     
  13. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #14
    Human Rights? No. And wearing paraphenalia (geesh, I can't spell tonight) is propaganada, imo.
     
  14. blue&whiteman macrumors 65816

    blue&whiteman

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    #15
    I totally hear what you're saying but right is right. oppression is oppression. its all bad.

    people have been held back from being themselves in many ways for too long.

    showing what religion you are hurts no one and I think people should be able to do ANYTHING they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Somehow you get the idea that because I don't see the 2nd Amendment as a right to own anything up to a nuclear missle that I want to take your guns away. Or that I hate guns or something. And that because I realize that the 5th amendment has that 'without just compensation' tacked onto the end of it you think I want to take your land. In your view the 5th amendment has a period after '...public use'.

    I know it's a joke about who hates what amendments, but I don't see that in reality either side has any hatred towards the constitution. Oh, I know it makes good jingoism, and 'plays well' as you say, but it's just a cheap straw man.

    On second thought I guess I hate the 18th amendment, but hopefully that's forgivable. I'd hate an amendment against gay marriage too I suppose. Our interpretations may be different but there's no hatred towards the rest of it.
     
  16. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #17
    But what you have to realize is that is a cultural value. Spefically an American one. For many cultures it is the group that is imporant, not the individual.

    That being said, I think they would argue that it does hurt people. That is part of the reason for banning it.
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    I don't see how it 'hurts' people to see other children wearing religious garb. I understand the rationale for not allowing teachers to wear outward signs of religion, but for students? Isn't part of school a (pardon the term) voyage of self-discovery?
     
  18. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #19
    How about this for a deal?

    You give the 2nd and 5th a very wide interpretation, and I'll give the 1st and 4th the same wide interpretation. That way, we both win.
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Not if 'very wide' means nuclear weapons or an absolute right to private property.
     
  20. blue&whiteman macrumors 65816

    blue&whiteman

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    #21
    thats forced conformity. just because I think the "american" way doesn't mean its just opinion. besides, not many people view america as the kind of people I am. I have a different way of thinking I guess because I don't think there is just culture and opinion that should rule. my point is that there is opinion and there is fact.

    with all of this its opinion and culture ruling. in retort.. letting people be what they want is the fact of respect and rights.

    just my way of thinking.. :confused:
     
  21. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #22
    :confused:
     
  22. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #23
    Where do you draw the line though? The extreme argument would be something like, why didn't the Germans have the right to exterminate Jews? They could argue that the group (Germany) was more important than the Jews as individuals. Now obviously I don't think you are advocating that, but it illustrates that the line is somewhat arbitrary don't you think?

    To me this is the problem with moral relativism. When taken to its fullest argument anything can be justified because you can't rightly apply ANY rules because one could argue that you are violating their world view/imposing your view on them. Of course we then have the problem of absolute morality. Given that we have religious/cultural systems who don't agree under this system we are oppressing one group or another usually based on who is the most powerful.

    All cultures/socities have to balance between individual welfare and group welfare. What we have to realize is that no system is perfect, and therefore it is up to us to continue to question the decisions and try and fight against injustice. We must of course be willing to accept the consequences.

    That said, I don't think its wrong to say that what the French are doing isn't right, anymore than it is for them to critcize us on the war in Iraq. The idea that we should let a country do whatever it wants, to me, is a cop out. As another poster pointed out oppresion is oppresion.
     
  23. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #24
    Propoganda? Good lord we aren't talking about a shirt that says something like "Worship Allah infidel Dogs". We are talking about headscarves that are meant to be worn out of a sense of decency and modesty.
     
  24. blue&whiteman macrumors 65816

    blue&whiteman

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    #25
    culture = conformity. plain and simple. its a bad thing at the very base of the idea yet people all blindly walk through life with these ideas that have been fed into theirs heads.

    people can be what they want. leave them alone.
     

Share This Page