France wants to ban religious and political symbols from schools

[Theben]

"In the name of atheism" is the key phrase. So unless you're one of those wackos who equates atheism=communism or nazism, try again.

[Jon Miller]

if you kill someone for following any type of religion

than it is for atheism

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

you scare me as much as the freakiest of fundamentalists (like that gay hater who goes arround dancing on gays graves)

Jon Miller

[Theben]

if you kill someone for following any type of religion

than it is for atheism

This makes no sense.

you scare me as much as the freakiest of fundamentalists (like that gay hater who goes arround dancing on gays graves)

Don't know why. I just get tired of jesus freaks after a while and this time I felt like tweaking ya *tweak tweak*

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Vesayen
You think you should be banned from wearig a Magen David under your shirt in a public school?

One of my freinds got banned for carrying a bottle of Mogen-David under his shirt, can he sue?

[Jamski]

Come on, banning religious clothing from schools is such an obvious thing to do. It will help

a) The children who get laughed at at school won't looks so ridiculous
b) More chance that children will break free of their parent's superstitions
c) Increase in rationalism and atheism

All schools should have a uniform anyway. A uniform covers a multitude of social and economic problems. Who knows if a kid is jewish, or poor, or fashionable, etc if he's wearing the same as anyone else.

But the main thing about this law is the removal of crucifixes from classroom walls. There's no good reason for them to be there, and it gives the pupils the false impression that christianity is a good thing, and something to be proud of.

Being religious is something people should be ashamed of, and they should not flaunt it in public unless they expect ridicule.

-Jam

[Az]

You fascist!

[Jamski]

Being anti-religious has nothing to do with political beliefs Azazel.

But I assume the means you're being sarcastic, yes?

But really, if I beleived in all kinds of superstitious rubbish, made up by someone else hundreds of years ago, then I ceratinly would keep quiet about it - either that or be prepared to face ridicule.

-Jam

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think he was being sarcastic, but I'm not:

You Fascist!

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Theben
Sounds like a perfect society to me. We need a society where all religions are banned.

Are you trolling? Why on earth would we need that? Banned != Not Followed. Religion is not something that needs to be outlawed. It will wither away of its own accord to the status of a quaint hobby soon enough.

Banning would actually be counter-productive in this case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Banning would actually be counter-productive in this case.

A look at the Central Asian provinces in the former USSR shows that statement to be totally true.

[Spiffor]

I can't believe I missed this one.

First, there is a French specificity in the regard of religion and school. The principles of Puclic Schooling in France have been laid out more than a century ago, in 1880. Since then, Public schools have to be Free, Laic and Mandatory. For comparison purpose, let's say these principles are as sacro-sanct to the French Schooling system (and all people involved) as the principles of the US constitution are sacrosanct to the American political system.
As a result, crosses and other religious symbols or doctrines have disappeared from the French public schools since 123 years. Private Schools (about 17% of French students) can still promote whatever religion they want. The students could still have pendants or other religious ju-ju, as long as it was too obvious.

With the recent increase of Muslim observance, and the even more recent religious/communitarist surge in the Jewish community, the old principles of laicism at school were shaken. In a supposedly laic school, it was not uncommon to see islamic scarves, and one could even sometimes spot Kippas.

For about a decade, no decision was taken, because the decision-makers were torn between the laicist principles and the need to give an adequate education to all regardless of religion. Most French people (at least within the educational system) were torn the same way.
Some School directors fired students wearing obvious religious symbols, some others tolerated it. Today's law has been rushed after a recent crisis.

---

Secondly, this law doesn't punish the fact that a student wears any religious display. It only punishes those who wear displays that are "ostentatoire", i.e. displays that are worn in order for others to see it.
This means, if you have a pendant with a cross under your shirt, you'll have no problem whatsoever. If you proudly wear a "Allah Rules over you all" T-shirt, then you'll have a problem.
One of the problems with law is that there is a huge grey zone. If a discreet religious pendant is over the shirt, is it "ostentatoire"? If a girl wears a muslim scarf, if this an "ostentatoire" display of religion, or is is it observance only aimed at her own spirituality?

Besides, the law doesn't change the old debate at school, whether laicism means that we accept any expression of religion, or whether it means schools must be religion-free. Try to answer that question

In short, this law doesn't solve anything.

[mrmitchell]

you scare me as much as the freakiest of fundamentalists (like that gay hater who goes arround dancing on gays graves)

Fred Phelps, but whoever you're replying to (Theban, War of Rat, whoever) isn't acting like him.

[Ben Kenobi]

displays that are worn in order for others to see it.

Spiffor:

For the sole purpose? Your example does not translate well to the Muslim and Jewish examples, or even to a Christian necklace. The whole point to wearing these has more to do with conforming to religious requirements, rather than any effort to proselytise.

[Dis]

why not ban it entirely from the country?