Why does the French government not believe in religious freedom?

[2004Donkeys]

This head scarves issue (as well as banning yamikas and crosses) is very offensive to me. This just invites terrorism back to France which will then give the Repukes an excuse to continue their War on Muslims, this time with the French backing.

I don't get why the French are doing this and with such support by the representatives.

Thousands Protest French Ban on Scarves

[LittleApple81]

1. They do not allow any religious symbols in school. What you

do outside of school is your business.

[Union Thug]

57. Geezus ...

...This just goes to show why religion really needs to pull a disappearing act. Please, oh god, free us from the stupidity of religion. Amen.

[aquart]

78. It's the same as banning gang colors.

Religious symbols creates tribal segregation among the students just as gang colors do.

France, which has a bloody history of religious massacre, is trying its best to maintain a secular society.

Not all Muslims insist their women cover up. Neither do all Jews feel the need to wear yarmulkas to prove their worthiness before God.

Those that do, are doing one thing more than practicing their faith. They are putting their faith in someone else's face.

The Muslims have come to live in France and, rather than live as the French, they are going to live as they do in the MidEast. Which means they are quietly trying to remake France, doesn't it? Into a religious country. Into a place where religious disputes and murders can take place daily.

That's why the headscarves are being forbidden. And the Yarmulkas, and crucifixes, and every other blood-soaked symbol of superiority and separatism.

Because, if they don't, one day there will be another St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. And they don't want one.

[Guaranteed]

95. No it's not. It's a matter of personal identity.

I hate to say it, but this issue runs a lot deeper than simple group affiliation. A person has an absolute RIGHT to their spiritual individuality. No one, EVER, can take that from someone. Head scarves, crosses, etc. are an important part of a peoples' personal connections with whatever spiritual entity or idea they relate to. To take these things away from someone not only degrades them, but their beliefs also, as if they were only gang signs or slogans. That's totally wrong.

I understand banning gang colors, but this is totally different.

[wuushew]

2. What I want to know is who proposed the law

I really doubt that French lawmakers have the time and inclination to hang around French schools looking for problems. If that is so and the law was not requested by educators or parents then it is simply a politcal move that scapegoats a particular segment of the population.

All is not well in France

[Terwilliger]

3. What's wrong with it? They're trying to enforce separation of church and..

state

While this move is rather aggressive, it's not unreasonable to ask school children to leave their religious dogmas at home.

[southerngirlwriter]

4. If the kids have to surrender their religious freedom at the door...

what other freedoms should they have to surrender at the door?

I'm not suggesting they be allowed to proselytize in school, but good grief -- do you know any Muslim families? Most of the young Muslim girls I know are MORTIFIED to be seen without their head coverings. Who the bloody hell does it hurt if they wear it in class?

If a State can mandate that religious freedom must be checked at the door, what about freedom of speech? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?

I believe this situation is an example of what is meant by "slippery slope."

[wuushew]

6. And the law is unnecessarily vague

How does one "objectively" determine how large a crucifix is before it is too deemed offensive?

[Terwilliger]

10. what place does religious symbolism have in a secular school?

Girls wearing a hijab to school tells other kids that don't know about Islam that their religion wants to subjugate women.

[southerngirlwriter]

19. That's awfully judgmental

Some women consider the hijab a sign of modesty, and they take pride in it, rather than feeling "subjugated."

If "religious symbolism" is not to be allowed in a secular school, then the study of vast amounts of the great literature of the world has to be eliminated, too. And much, if not "most," of the art.

Obviously, religious symbolism WILL BE in school in some form. The question is where to draw the line. It hurts no one for a little Jewish kid to wear his yarmulke or a little Muslim girl to wear her hijab or a little Christian kid to wear a cross.

If the simple wearing of a symbol is bad, dangerous, or "proselytizing," then that's somewhere I don't think you really want to go. How long before pink triangles become an imprisonable offense? Before a Darwin fish becomes hate speech?

Do you REALLY want to go there?

[Terwilliger]

32. Better than waiting for the religio-nuts to declare everything they say to

be absolute truth, yes

Governments need to clamp down of this dogmatic stuff...sure you can believe in your religion, sure you can me "modest"...

But leave that away from formal schooling. Understanding and knowledge are anathema to dogmatic beliefs. It's not about "PC"

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. How dare anyone not follow the state religion

The state religion in this case is: "France Rules Supreme and all people in France must accept this."

What a load of merde.

[Terwilliger]

68. like Israel's state religion?

that same sort of EMPHASIS?

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Israel is a pluralistic society

It is a homeland for the PEOPLE who are Jewish, no religion required.

[aquart]

79. No. It says that these girls feel purer than the other girls.

It's a symbol of smug superiority. I am more modest than you. I am therefore a better woman and more beloved of God.

You girls without headscarves? You are sluts. And God knows it.

[Karenina]

28. What kind of conditioning

does it take to produce a kid who is "mortified" if some cells growing on the top of her head are seen? What about girls who would jump for joy if they could just dress like their colleages at least in school OUT FROM UNDER ANYONE'S THUMB? This is NOT your typical B/W American issue. Why is everyone all bent out of shape over women's clothing? Does this mean that if I have a "bad hair day" and throw on a scarf that it's a "political/religious issue?

I got LOTS of Muslim neighbors, many whom I love dearly. I ask a lot of questions and put my knee-jerk Ami reactions on the table for them to pick apart. I'm so conflicted on this issue. It AMAZES me that so many of you are SO CERTAIN absent any real exposure.

[southerngirlwriter]

31. "any real exposure"

Well, not counting the interfaith committee at the Interfaith commission, the Muslim family for whom I worked as a nanny for two summers, the Muslim family who live next door to my favorite cousin, with whom I have broken bread on a number of occasions, and my friendship with a local imam, who helped me do some research and writing on Islam after 9/11, you're right, I have no real exposure.

As to conditioning, what does it matter if you or I or anyone else disapproves? They have the freedom to be Muslims and wear their head coverings and feel however they feel about it. It's not up to me or you or anyone else, especially anyone else calling themselves a liberal, to judge that.

Their rights stop at my nose, your nose, etc. Unless my nose is in their hair, their head covering is not an issue.

Sheesh.

[Karenina]

88. Sorry SGW, I see

you interpreted my comment as a jab in your direction. Not my intent at all.

[arewethereyet]

8. this has nothing to do with seperation of church and state as you think

they're trying to force people who move to France to be like everyone already there. THe reason for this is the surprizingly large Muslim population there that is beginining to influence French politics. THey have to start with the kids who will be voting soon and need to become "French" insted of Muslim so that France does not become a muslin nation ala Iran.

If they were REALLY bold they would require that all residents cease wearing these items.

Its basic mind control, its best to start while they're young.

[wuushew]

11. All the Algerian immigrants from the 1970's turned out fine

They were mostly young men, but I don't see why cultural assimilation is any less likely with the current generation.

[arewethereyet]

14. This was generally prior to the rise of radical Islam

those guys were just trying to earn a buck.

[Terwilliger]

12. huh?

Why are you equating this with a national drive to eradicate Islam?

[arewethereyet]

15. because I believe thats what it is.

[Terwilliger]

37. Islam is what it is...a religion

so is Christianity and Judaism

It's not about Islam.

[Guaranteed]

98. That IS what this is.

The idea of the separation of church and state prohibits the state from forcing the individual into a certain religion, or lack thereof. That's why it's wrong for Roy Moore to have the Ten Commandments in the public courthouse- it's a governmental endorsement of a religion. That's totally illegal.

This is the same thing. The only difference is that instead of the government pushing religion, it's pushing a LACK of religion. Now, instead of being encouraged to practice Christianity, you're being forced to NOT practice your religion. That's just as oppressive as Roy Moore's Ten Commandments- in fact it's much moreso.

Those kids should be able to wear whatever religious clothing they want to. That is FREEDOM.

[RapidCreek]

20. At last we have a parting of the ways

I think it is pretty fucked up, personally. The school isn't forcing anyone to wear anything to proclaim religious affiliation...that is a choice the students make...and it is a choice well within their rights in a free society. It is not an enforcement of the separation of church and state but a denial of the students right to wear what they want to wear. As long as their cloths are clean, cover their genitalia and contain no message which disparages a particular group whom they must associate with at school, I fail to see what the problem is.

This law is no more right than one which would prevent a student from wearing a Darwin Fish T-shirt. It is highly unreasonable to ask school children to leave their religious dogmas at home. Truely faithful people live their faith 24/7...it is a part of their being...as well it should be. If all those who claim to be faithful demonstrated their faith through thier actions in day to day life instead of in the confession booth or for an hour on Sunday the world would be a better place.

RC

[kenny blankenship]

21. if they (meaning the parents) are THAT --apart-- from secular life

then they shouldn't send their kids to a public school.They should not expect the rest of society to pay money for their kids' education if they reject profane, secular life to the point that they have to wear special clothing 24x7.

Remember "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's" ?
taxes, citizenship duties etc. are _due_ to Caesar.

If some people don't like that deal then they can live as anchorites, without any relationship to the state and the surrounding society. Or they should make like John Walker Lindh and move to the theocracy of their choice.

[smirkymonkey]

29. Bingo!

n/t

[Broken]

39. whateva

"if they (meaning the parents) are THAT --apart-- from secular life".....They should not expect the rest of society to pay money for their kids' education if they reject profane, secular life to the point that they have to wear special clothing 24x7"


What we are talking about here is the Freedom of Speech. It seems you and quite a number of other Liberals think it is ok to train children to so easily give up their autonomy to authority.

These parents also pay taxes to the state just like you, and they live in it's territory. What you are arguiing is a "take it or leave it" attitude, which again does teach and train children to conform, or else.

If someone wants to wear clothing, or even feels that to be true to themselves they must wear these religious symbols or certain clothing than it is theire right to express themselves in such a way (as oppossed to what is 'commonly considered "hate").

This is exactly a limiting of the liberty of a child to wear what he/she feels like wearing. To me it doesn't matter wether YOU agree with that clothing or not, that's tough luck for YOU. You're wanting to control the liberty of a child through the state to fit 'your'
specifications of acceptable attire. This is training children to give up their own autonomy at school. You are wanting children to compartmentalize their liberty, away from school they have it, at school they don't.

You may say "but that's also what happens when a child grows up and goes of to work". What do you think their training was for?

[Broken]

47. ......

I also don't care if the parents are having the child wear it (although I still may have problems with that). It doesn't give anyone a right to control the attire of another. This has to do with the freedom of speech, the freedom to express yourself.

And anyways. The public school system is to train children to grow to be good little productive workers for "free eneterprise". In the past and still to a large degree we are/were taught to be good factory workers. To handle dullifying repetition and obedience. And now we're taught those same things for both factory's and white collar office workers. Without this training from childhood, the grown children wouldn't obey so readily, or compratmentlize their liberty so easily.

As we can see from this thread. School is not about "freethinking", but conformity.

[LeahMira]

89. School uniforms and dress codes...

What we are talking about here is the Freedom of Speech.

Not everyone thinks of Freedom of Speech as including what a person wears. That is more an American frame of mind.

We have regulations about what people can wear in public also, but our regulations are more focused on the minimum someone has to wear.

This is exactly a limiting of the liberty of a child to wear what he/she feels like wearing.

Hopefully, children in the U.S. have some limits on what they can wear also.

Most schools have some sort of dress code because students have previously come to school dressed inappropriately in some way. Quite a few schools have some sort of school uniform. If we can say that kids can't wear tank tops or short shorts to school, why can't the French say that kids can't wear a headscarf in school?

Are religious symbols so "untouchable" that they stand outside the general rules and in a separate category?

[aquart]

81. Which will put the girls completely under religious control.

Sending them to fully Islamic schools will give them no exposure to other kinds of thought. It condemns these girls to a life they approve without choosing. Or it may even further radicalize them.

That's the dilemna.

[Guaranteed]

102. What??? What the HELL is this?

Is this a liberal board or what?

Those kid's parents pay TAXES. It is THEIR school JUST as much as it is ANYONE else's school- that's why it's called a PUBLIC school. AND, they have a GOD GIVEN, INALIENABLE right to their religious liberty, WHEREEVER they are, which this government is trying to take from them.

Doesn't ANYONE understand the idea behind the 1st Amendment??

[Terwilliger]

36. OK fine...then kids should be allowed to come to school naked as well

as an expression of themselves of course

If you find that acceptable, ask anybody else if they do and see what the reaction is.

If these people wish to express their religion by covering themselves (you've yet to say why Muslim women should be different from Christians or Jews) then they are learning to be second-class citizens. "Modesty" only applies because of the way men see the world.

I'm sure the women of Iraq, now facing Sha'ria Law and old religious prejudices, aren't happy to have to start wearing covers again. Next thing they know, they'll lose their lives for exposing their ankles.

[Broken]

51. ok

"OK fine...then kids should be allowed to come to school naked as well"....."as an expression of themselves of course
If you find that acceptable, ask anybody else if they do and see what the reaction is."


This is absolutely ridiculous. The argument isn't wether one can go naked or not. It is about WHAT clothes you CAN'T wear and WHERE you can wear them. Which implys that they are perfectly okay to wear in EVERY other public space. It is a law against freedom of speech.


By the way, the freedom of speech doesn't protect you from being offended by what type of clothes someone wears.

[Terwilliger]

60. what else is appropriate?

when is anything not appropriate? how do you define it?

What about Santeria?

[Broken]

63. //////

yeah sure santeria. How 'bout wicca. How 'bout Buddhism? How 'bout satanism? How 'bout atheist shirts? I could care less, as long they aren't targeting hate against another group. I'd rather have to look at something I dissagree with then have that person be told what they are allowed to wear. Sooner or later someone's going to find a reason why you shouldn't be able to express yourself the way you see fit.

[Terwilliger]

66. ok...so you have no problem if they start putting Ten Commandments

plaques on the desks?

[Broken]

73. ,,,,,

What the state? The School district, the prinicpal, the teacher? Yeah I got a problem with that. That is totally different then a kid wearing a cross on his neck or wearing religious clothing. That would be the state endorsing a religion on school property. That is different. The students are NOT school property. And I believe you are not being intellectually honest, if this is your argument.


The only other thing I can think you're meaning is if a kid brought in a little plack that he/she put at his/her desk while at school while doing his/her work. And no, I wouldn't have a problem with that. And how many kids even do this to even worry about it? Anyways, I think it's good for kids to come into contact with other peoples point of view, wether the other kids agree (we're actually talking about parents here....) with it or not. The point of free speech is so the state won't infringe upon this inalienable right, it doesn't mean we a live in a sterile bubble free from seeing or hearing things you disagree with. Children should be taught to think for themselves, not shielded from other peoples take on the world.
But whatever I'm not going to go further with this. It's a complete waste of time, it is no longer possible to take your arguments seriously.

I don't believe you are being intellectually honest, but are simply not wanting people to be allowed to express their views which you find unacceptable, and school is where this can be controlled. Not only this, but the reason this argument is even seriously discussed is because our society looks at children's freedom as less then worthy.

And no, I'm a not a believer in any religion.

[Guaranteed]

103. You need to study up on the 1st Amendment.

You don't understand the idea of personal liberty.

[rman]

75. hyperbole

how is it that wearing a cross or a headscraf is as unacceptable a being naked?

[Terwilliger]

48. At last?

You sound like you've been waiting for this.

[RapidCreek]

82. Not actually...most of the time we agree on things

I'm surprised to hear you say what you have in this thread. Shocked actually.

RC

[Spentastic]

87. Whoa!

"If all those who claim to be faithful demonstrated their faith through thier actions in day to day life instead of in the confession booth or for an hour on Sunday the world would be a better place. "

Hold up one minute. Practice of religion is often based upon intepretation thereof. At times in history where religion and practice thereof was central to the business of statehood several hundred thousand people who had different beliefs were killed.

I'd prefer the religious to keep their views in their churches.

[RapidCreek]

100. Religion is not central to the business of statehood...

here or in France. In fact both of our governments are based upon that fact.

This sort of sillyness gives weight to the argument that atheism is a religion...People have just as much right to be free from the state sponsored edicts of atheism as I do from state sponsored edicts of christianity.

RC

[Spentastic]

109. Bollocks

"state sponsored edicts of atheism"

There is none of this in the French decision. It's not aetheism. It's about remaining neutral.

[Guaranteed]

104. That's fascism. You're contradicting yourself. nt

[Spentastic]

107. Now hold on

That's a serious charge. You're going to have to do more than type "nt" to make it stick.

What exactly is facist about my argument thus far?

[Guaranteed]

111. "I'd prefer the religious to keep their views in their churches."

You can't do that. Everyone has the right to express themselves in public, as long as they're not hurting anyone.

Your idea is fascist.

[Spentastic]

113. You say so do you?

So it's true is it?

Your USA mentaltity is showing. Other people think different things.

[Guaranteed]

115. Freedom:

My liberties end at the tip of your nose. If I'm not hurting you, I get to do what I want. If you try to stop me when I'm not doing anything to you, you're oppressing me. That's freedom.

You can't take away an individual's freedom for the "sake of the state" when they aren't hurting anybody.

[rman]

74. then why do they meddle with expression of religion

i am not religious, i have NO problem with people wearing religious symbols. (unless it's socially impractical, such as a veil - but that's a non-religious consideration).

[ixion]

5. why? is there some other country that allows religious freedom?

Certainly you don't think religious freedom is tolerated in the US...

[arewethereyet]

9. the US is among the best in this area.

try setting up a Wiccan church in Saudi Arabia

[Terwilliger]

13. shit...try setting up a Wiccan church anywhere but cities in the US

and you're likely to get it burned down

[arewethereyet]

16. In Saudi Arabia

if you only thought about it you would be killed.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

Catholics and Jews are still treated like shit in some areas of the US

try being Catholic in a town full of fundie Christians.

[arewethereyet]

34. try being one in Belfast in the wrong neighborhood

and get "kneecapped" or bombed. no comparison.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

38. That's a Civil War that's been going on for decades

we're talking the US here.

[arewethereyet]

43. the situation you describe in this country has been going on as long

but people are not getting that level of violence directed against them. In fact the two situations parallel closely but with very different outcomes.

[Terwilliger]

41. well, that sucks

why are we still supporting them?

We should support Saddam Hussein, who treated women as equal members in his society. (Equally willing to be killed by him, but...you know)

[arewethereyet]

44. I seem to recall we're largely out of that country

that would mean a notable decrease in support for those idiots.

[Terwilliger]

49. are you kidding? you mean Saudi?

where we give the most of our money to?

Or the new idiots we're putting in place in Iraq? They're probably closet Wahabbists themselves.

[arewethereyet]

52. we were buying oil AND operating huge military bases

now we're just buying oil and the bases costs were directly from the US government to them.

If you don't think thats different look up what it costs to run a large military base.

I'd love to get one tenth of one percent of that kind of money.

[Terwilliger]

56. we started out on religious freedom

:shrug:

[ixion]

25. Hogwash. The only religion that is accepted in the US

is Western based religions. A handful of others are tolerated, but not really accepted. And anything outside what may be considered a 'mainstream' religion is considered a cult, IMO.

[arewethereyet]

26. acceptance is a matter of personal choice

if that church can create converts, thats how it creates acceptance. If they are failing to do that its hardly the fault of the country and does not begin to address why my blonde haired, blue eyed neice is now a hindu.

the fact remains, these churchs CAN and DO form and prosper to the extent that their message is accepted.

[ixion]

27. no, there's more than just personal acceptance... there is public

if religion and spirituality were truly treated as private, I would agree that it would be a non-issue. But, in my opinion, religious intolerance is a public phenomena. While it may not be active intolerance, in some cases, in other cases it becomes highly aggressive, and normally causes the group to:

a) go underground

b) implode or disintegrate

or c) , in the final case, the public trust destroys the religion by labeling it a cult, or dangerous, or illegal.

And while I personally may not approve of the multitude of religions and religious beliefs, I fully support a person's right to believe in, and practice whatever religous ritual they want without fear of persecution for those beliefs.

However what I see in society in constant Christian innuendo, with thinly veiled disdain or outright disgust for anything other than a western pragmatic religion.

[arewethereyet]

40. you make a statement but don't back it up

and then opine on something unrelated.

But if you insist, its Christian churches getting torched here in Richmond VA not Hindu, Wiccan, Muslin etc.

What church has gone underground in America ?

What church disintegrated for reasons other than socially unacceptable behavior, inability to maintan a following or raise cash ?

IF they are a cult, dangerous or illegal why would they NOT attract negative attention ?

If there is Christian innuendo its probably because this is a very predominantly Christina country much as there is a muslim innuendo in muslim Saudi Arabia. And perhaps there is distaste but they don't kill you.

[rman]

76. up untill now 'ordinary' expression of religion was allowed..

in all western nations (and many others for that matter).
Unless you think that has nothing to do with religious freedom, this freedom is being limited only now, unlike before.

[fearnobush]

7. France - This is a real bad thing that will grow more terrorists.

At least our constitution provides a separation of church and state clause - don't know if that will last much longer. If it were up to Bush and General Boykin, well - need I say more.

[kenny blankenship]

17. The ban also affects crucifixes, skull caps, and other religious articles

basically it says you can't make yourself a billboard for your religion INSIDE A PUBLIC SCHOOL.

I don't know if I'd "go there" personally, but it seems within the rights of the state to require religion be put aside for schoolhours. After all, from a secular perspective the head scarf thing is emblematic of a religious restriction placed on women but not men, which implies the inferiority of women.(yes, I know: some Muslims will deny that til the cows come home, but I don't care. The fact is they make no such pretenses outside of secular societies-- nor do many other religions, which preach the inferiority of women).
why is a secular state supposed to countenance that ?

Like i said i don't know if i'd sponsor such legislation myself (it seems a little confrontational) But then again, maybe they don't want to end up like us?

[I_like_chicken]

18. I think it has to do with French history and culture

For much of its history France has been mostly devoid of racial diverstity, until recently. With a large influx of muslims immigrants, mainly from former French colonies, there has been increased anxiety about the degradation of French society and culture. With France being mainly a secular nation, I think this is a social reflex meant to protect France's traditional status as a secular nation. I don't think this is the right thing to do, nor do I think that this propostion will achieve the goal of protecting French culture. In all likelyhood it will probably lead to increased segregation and hostility of muslims towards the French.

[rlev1223]

22. History

The history of French committment to keeping religion out of its public schools is long and deep.

It goes back to the (very violent) French Revolution, in which the Catholic Church was attacked fiercely, and a subsequent century of back and forth fighting to determine the acceptable role of the Church in the social and political life of the country. Basically, the French now adhere to a sort of secularism which keeps religious expression private and out of the political process, most especially out of the schools. (They very much distrust fundy religious posturing in America.)

I first read about the growing problem of veiled Muslim schoolgirls over a decade ago. The growing Muslim population of France -- a population less interested in assimilation than previuus immigrants, evidently -- has raised both security concerns and more important, concerns about the future of "laic" French institutions.

There is also an issue of coercion -- in some, perhaps many cases, the wearing of the veil may not be a free choice of the girl but a coerced practice. The French don't like having rival religious authorities overrule their basic national principles.


Although the idea of a dress code, especially one designed to stifle a particular form of individual expression, is odd and troubling for Americans, the French have good historical reasons to see it as a support for democracy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Slavery

Americans thought they had "good historical reasons to see it as a support for democracy." Then Jim Crow took over and they treated it the same.

Wise nations wise up.

[kodi]

23. compared to st. bartholomew's day massacre, this is minor.

you want maybe the froggies should do to the muslims what they did to the protestants?

france ain't the US and comments that decry a culture that demands cultural integration are plain out and out goofy, because in your remarks you are exhibiting towards the french exactly what you are decryng in their behavior, showing intolerance to another culture and its desire to maintain its purity.

as to the vaunted tolerance of recent muslim societies, anyone know how many christian schools that are open to the public in saudi arabia and iran? what about bahai schools?

anyone with a lick of sense is familar with the massive problems france faces by immigration to france of non-christian populations who refuse to westernize/frankenize including many of whom promote religious fanaticism on par with the bad craziness that instigated the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

[rlev1223]

24. BG article / NY Times

at
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/weekinreview/08scio.html

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Product of Evolution]

33. Why doesn't CHIRAC believe in religious freedom?

Some reason he doesn't believe in Asian democracy or gay rights.

[arewethereyet]

46. and you guys around here think he's the cat;'s meow

it just kills me !

[Product of Evolution]

58. I don't..

His reasons for opposing OIL were not based in integrity.

For most French, thankfully, it's a different story.

[K8-EEE]

35. I Can Understand It...Not Saying I Agree With The Law But

but it is difficult to explain! Basically their way of perceiving religion has a lot to do with their history, being under the tyranny of the Catholic Church for centuries, when it was all tangled up with the monarchy.

What we think of as freedom OF religion they might think as freedom FROM religion. Especially in an educational setting -- the two don't always mix, as you see with the freeps not wanting to even SAY "evolution." So if you are in a science class, it should be about science, not have a thing where the church is saying the world is flat because some damn Pope thinks so, etc.

Liberty Of Thought is a big deal to them. To have the religions sort of insinuating themselves in the public school is not OK with a lot of them.

[Joe Momma]

42. because france has always been a contradictory joke

of a country.

[Terwilliger]

45. why do you say that?

please...elaborate

[Joe Momma]

50. oh, i just don't like the french

very old country with a history of atrocity. typical european racism that still lingers strongly in the psyche of the people.

and theres that whole coward thing that they just can't seem to shake.

i will say that they were right about the iraq thing. but i knew that without their help.

ask some africans and s.e. asians how they feel about the french.

france has gotten a bad rap in the U.S. for quite some time. some is undeserved, but much is not.

i do like the fries though.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

53. Oh what crap

"very old country with a history of atrocity. typical european racism that still lingers strongly in the psyche of the people."

I have lived in europe and that is complete bullshit. you only show your ignorance. that's like saying Americans still hold the views prevalent in the mid-19th century. I know those who vote Republican do but most do not.

"theres that whole coward thing that they just can't seem to shake"

they lost millions of men and WW1 and put up a hell of a resistance in WWII. I could suggest a lot of history reading material to round out your education, but I fear the books I would suggest don't have big print and pretty pictures.

"france has gotten a bad rap in the U.S. for quite some time. some is undeserved, but much is not."

No, most of it is typical stereotyping.

[Joe Momma]

54. well

repubs are nearly half of our country. so you are right, nearly half of my country still carries attitudes of the 19th century. i have lived in europe as well, and it is not bs.

they still burn synogogues. they still carry out genocide. they still do nothing when genocide is carried out. i am sure you have a book to justify that.

ask current day africans and se asians if these are attitudes of a bygone era.

incidentally, those 19th century attitudes of the white male conservative don't come from the 3rd world. we just don't call them european-americans cause its too long. and we don't read too many books.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

55. Genocide? Where do they commit genocide?

We're not talking WW2 here. If you're going to make such flagrant statements, you need to provide links from reputable sources. I certainly know about Bosnia, but we're talking France here.

Have you lived in France? Where have you been in Europe?

[Joe Momma]

61. links, links, links

wasn't there some kind of slaughter going on in eastern europe when my man was pres? oh, well, maybe not. what did france do about that? probably scared. french were complicit in the genocide of ww2. their govt was not of course, because they kinda gave up early on. their were some brave individuals in the french resistance, but you would be hard pressed to calculate the percentage of the overall population. anyway, they all came over here after the war. sorry, this is all ancient history. all the victims are long dead, and the soldiers long buried.

wasn't france involved in some place that eventually cost the lives of a lot of americans and asians? no link, so probably not.

oh, and incidentally, all european countries are pretty much the same. except monaco, they are ok.

i lived in germany for a few years. they really loved us. complained a lot about us tearing up their roads. i went to some concentration camps, but i didn't complain to any of them about it. didn't want to ruffle any feathers. we did exchange some good jokes about the french though.

we have a difference of opinion. i don't feel sorry for france, and i think their bad rap is deserved. you do not.

[LeahMira]

93. We in the U.S. aren't perfect...

they still burn synogogues. they still carry out genocide.

These kinds of things are still happening in the U.S. as well.


they still do nothing when genocide is carried out.

Sort of like the U.S. response to the genocide in Rwanda?


ask current day africans and se asians if these are attitudes of a bygone era.

You might want to start your attitude research right here in the U.S.


incidentally, those 19th century attitudes of the white male conservative don't come from the 3rd world.

Clearly. There are many third world peoples that are far more democratic, far more respectful of one another and far more accepting of difference than Euro-Americans.

There are certainly many things that are admirable about the U.S., but the simple fact is that we aren't best in everything and we can learn from others.

[Terwilliger]

59. france didn't french the fries

that term is an American one

France is France...so you don't like them, but that's quite a blanket generalization. Are you like George Bush, Richard Nixon, etc? Are all Americans the same?

If their government makes mistakes, it sounds like they have good days and bad days too.

[Joe Momma]

62. oh well

now i have nothing. how about french toast?

not all americans are the same, but the european-american ones are awfully similar.

[Terwilliger]

65. oh?

similar in what sense?

[Joe Momma]

67. why, only skin color of course

didn't you know?

[Terwilliger]

69. Not many european Americans realize there are other types

that's why I asked

[blurp]

71. Education isn't what you do for kids, it's what you do TO them

Public education exists for the benefit of the state, not for the benefit of the children.

QED.

[Locke_]

84. Oh No, He's Right!

There is definitely some truth to that statement...though I think that we need to help flip that statement around.

[Taeger]

72. It's THERE country

France has no right to tell the US what our students should wear in school. Likewise, we have no right to tell them what THERE schoolchildren should or should not wear.

Beyond this, I think the French are concerned that French culture is being disrupted by immigrants. France is NOT a melting pot like the US.

Come to think of it, the melting has really slowed here in the US. Perhpas we should start thinking about the US as a country with an indigenous culture as opposed to 200 different immigrant groups.

[Serenity-NOW]

77. Gang colors are banned in US schools

now consider the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition- nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Religions are just gangs with a book.

Religious expression has no place in school, it's divisive and inflammatory. It only belongs in Churches. If people want to wear targets as a religious symbol and preach intolerance would they be welcome in school? Church of the holy bull's eye. Somebody get out the holy hand grenade of Antioch and let's settle this.

[Enjolras]

80. Hear hear!!

The French are quite rightly concerned about rising anti-semitism, attributable to its growing Muslim population, and the growing population of Islamic fundamentalists within that number. Some would say that forbidding school children to wear religious symbols in school does nothing to alleviate this. But asserting and affirming the principle of official state secularism certainly can't hurt.

Just look at Turkey. There have been similar restrictions on Islamic fundamentalists there for years, and it's a Muslim country!! (Where's the outrage of Christian fundamentalists in America for that, huh?) But Turkey is in a region being deluged by powerful waves of militant Islam, and has managed to keep it at bay. Maybe that's an example for France, and other countries with rising numbers of Islamic fundamentalists, to watch.

[Guaranteed]

105. You're totally wrong.

I can't believe this board. People talk about freedom and then they say things like you just did. You clearly have no idea what freedom is.

MY liberties end at the end of YOUR nose. I can do WHATEVER I want, worship HOWEVER I want, as long as I don't infringe on YOUR rights. You have the right to safety, so if I came into your school and threatened you in the name of religious freedom, that, of course, would not be allowable. Neither would having a nudist religion, because we have laws against indecency in public (although I could still practice my nudist religion in my home).

Those kids have the INALIENABLE RIGHT to practice their religion in public, as long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone else.

Your view is FASCIST, and you ought to do some studying.

Same for the guy that responded to your post that agrees with you.

The number of people agreeing with this crap is extremely disappointing- actually, it's fucking DISTURBING. I thought that, as liberals, we were defending freedom. Apparently not.

[0rganism]

83. When did you stop beating your wife?

It's not like kids are allowed to wear whatever they want to schools in America, either. Hell, they can't even bring nail clippers in with 'em, or it's a suspension.

I'm not at all impressed with the France bashing that's become something of a national pasttime.

[eurolefty]

85. Greetings from Europe

I admire your fair and balanced way of just stating the facts. Therefore I must be totally honest with you. Your president is right! We Europeans are just plain evil! That's why we don't believe in religious freedom.

sincerely,

Evil European Committee for World Domination

[Spentastic]

86. Welcome to DU

I'm a fellow European and would like to second your opinion. Further more we are a bunch of amoral cowards who won't join in wars for fun.

WE ARE EVIL EUROPEANS.

EECfWD

secretary.

[Isere]

91. The French hold their secularism very dear

The secular state is the pillar of France's identity and it is being severely challenged now with the rise of religious fundamentalism. While I tend to be more "American" in my approach to the wearing of religious symbols in school, I do have some sympathy with the dilemma that France confronts today.

France has, in fact, welcomed many immigrants from all over the world and has done so for years. The key pact between France and the newcomer has always been that if you learn French and learn to value French culture, then you are accepted no matter where you are from or what your ethnicity. Those who choose to cleave to their own language and habits are seen as outsiders.

Problems arose as the influx of Muslims increased and became more fundamentalist. Girls wearing headscarves also refused to participate in physical education and biology classes. Violence in schools is a new phenomenon in France and it occurs almost exclusively in poor neighborhoods that have a volatile mix of disaffected Muslim youth. Contrary to what a poster said earlier, French politicians are keenly aware of these problems. The nightly news has almost a daily serving of stories about teachers and students being assaulted on school property.

Having lived for several years in France, I can understand the great pain that this issue is causing to everyone. I fully understand the overwhelming vote in the French Assembly to ban religious symbols from public schools. They are
trying to preserve their honored tradition of a secular nation where everyone is equal. Frankly, I think it is too late and I'm sorry for that.

My family doesn't agree with me on this, but I say "Bravo" for France for trying to maintain its ideals.

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. It comes down to this

If the U.S. under * was doing this crap, every single person on this board would be up in arms. But because it's darling France which had the gaul to oppose * on Iraq, then they can do no wrong.

That, and the fact that many here on the board would gladly eliminate ALL religion if they could.

[Spentastic]

94. No it doesn't

But this isn't happening in the U.S is it? Apples and oranges then?

It comes down to people arguing that freedom of religion can and should be limited if it is deemed to threaten the institutions that enable a society where freedom to practice religion is protected.

As for eliminating all religion, if it didn't hurt anyone what harm would there be? There are people here who would gladly assert the prmiacy of faith over reason. That's just as concerning to me.

Was Gaul a typo or a pun?

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. Not apples and oranges

Both nations are allegedly free.

Anything can be "deemed to threaten the institutions that enable a society where freedom to practice religion is protected." That doesn't mean we should limit it. Do we stop anti-religious films and commentary? Do we stop pro-religious films and commentary?

Do we just ban religion altogether?

You are welcomed to be concerned if people place first. However, it is none of your damn business whether they do or not.

Yes, Gaul a pun.

[Spentastic]

99. Free?

Free to do what? Free to do whatever you want? Nope, not in either country. The restrictions may be different but I bet I can find some things forbidden in the U.S that are not in France. Oh, here's one. If Janet had got her breast out in France people would be demanding to know why she didn't get the other one out, not going mental.

France has a fiercly protected secular tradition. The U.S does not. The separation of church and state in the U.S is being eroded. This does cause concern to many. Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't be worried that a fundamentalist Christian whacko is involved in setting Government policy?

It absolutely is my business if it affects the state.

[Guaranteed]

110. The only thing that can be limited is the SPECIFIC thing that

is threatening their society. Only the ACTUAL danger can be disallowed. The clothing that goes along with religion, as long as the clothing is not the specific problem that is hurting the society, can not be disallowed.

[LeahMira]

97. Freedom FROM religion is also a right!

That, and the fact that many here on the board would gladly eliminate ALL religion if they could.

I don't have a problem with religion generally, but I do have issues when people place religious opinions above personal differences of opinion.

We all disagree from time to time. The difficulty comes when one person insists that their opinion has to be "right" because "god says so."

[Muddleoftheroad]

101. Where do you get that idea?

You are right to be free of religion in YOUR life, but not to expect it of others. Nor do you have a right to expect that religion will not enter into their decision making process.

[Guaranteed]

108. It IS right- for THEM. And you can't tell them otherwise.

You don't have the freedom to hear or see exactly what you want to in public. That's not the way it works. If you want to tell them they're wrong, or whatever, you have that right, just as they have the right to tell you that you're wrong. And both of you have that right as long as you're not hurting each other. You're can't FORCE each other to believe or wear anything as a matter of religion- again, as long as no one is hurting each other.

Get your "rights" straight.

[Guaranteed]

106. Totally agreed.

Your analysis of why this is happening in France, and why people on DU are reacting the way that they are, is dead on.

This thread has made me fucking SICK. People have no sense of freedom. Fuckin' A- can anyone in the world get their shit straight? This thread looks like it belongs on Free Republic.

[Spentastic]

112. O.K one ad hominem deserves another

I can't believe that people are asserting the rights of undemocratic religions over those of a progressive secular state.

People have no sense of perspective this thread could come straight from G W Bush's own mouth.

[Guaranteed]

114. What? No one's rights are being put "over" the state's

because the religious views of these people aren't hurting anyone.

[Spentastic]

116. Wrong again

"because the religious views of these people aren't hurting anyone."

That's not what the French believe at all. There is serious concern that religion of itself may threaten the very instituitions of French life.

You seem to believe in the concept of personal liberty above all else. I disagree, I believe the conept of a greater good is valid. The French seem to agree with me.

[Guaranteed]

117. How can you have a greater good without your freedom?

The religion itself isn't hurting anybody. What's hurting people, if anything, is the actions of people who may or may not happen to practice a religion. These people will carry out these actions whether there's a religion involved or not, certainly.

And, more certainly, women wearing head scarves aren't hurting anyone, are they? Are there large gangs of scarved women roaming the streets of Paris with sacks filled with doorknobs?

If there's a problem, they should address the issue directly. Don't attack ideas, or CLOTHES, for Christ's sake- attack actions.

Further, like I said, it seems contradictory to be talking about "what's best for everyone" when you're taking everyone's rights away. Why don't you ask the Muslim women what's right for them?

[Moderator]

118. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

So far, this thread has produced French-bashing, religious-bashing and a few personal attacks. That's enough.