US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sava
This stupid french bashing is so lame.

I don't think this is stupid French bashing. We've had quite a few good posters in this thread, and I don't believe they're prone to French bashing, despite they disagreed with the decision.

The homogenity of the French Side in this thread has shown something clear: that there is a definite cultural thing in France that makes our understanding of the issue completely different to most people in the rest of the world. This confrontation between cultures is not lame IMHO, it is a good thing, even if it can get a bit confrontational at times.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is equivalent to the obligation of disclosing whether we believe in god or not. Freedom of religion is not compatible with this obligation.

That's a silly statement. So what if you disclose if you believe or not? Nothing is going to happen to you for it.

A citizen is supposed to forgo any previous monarch/authority and not to hold it higher than that of the government. A god is a monarch/authority. Therefore, placing a god's laws over the government is not allowed.

Yes, but you can BELIEVE that Sharia should be the US's law. You just can't do it .

If you ban them, you attack the religious feelings of some people. If not, you will have, sooner or later, non-veiled girls attacked and hassled. Which one do you prefer?

A. Why would non-veiled girls be attacked and hassled, when they are BY FAR the majority?! It seems like silly paranoia.

B. Personally I'd prefer the latter (having some non-veiled girls harassed rather than closing off religious liberty which doesn't hurt anyone by itself).

[LDiCesare]

Why would non-veiled girls be attacked and hassled, when they are BY FAR the majority?! It seems like silly paranoia.

They are.
Girls who are muslim but don't wear the scarf are stigmatized. Maybe catholics arent', but those who look arab are hassled, because they are 'expected' to wear scarves, whatever their personal preferences be.

About whether or not one could say 'God' or not in the U.S.oaths. The problem for me is that 'God' is a word written in the constitution of the U.S. and its legal texts, where it has no room if you want it to be religion-neutral, which is IMO the only way to respect freedom of religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are.
Girls who are muslim but don't wear the scarf are stigmatized. Maybe catholics arent', but those who look arab are hassled, because they are 'expected' to wear scarves, whatever their personal preferences be.

Then deal with the harassment. Don't take the religious rights away from those that want to wear the headscarfs.

The problem for me is that 'God' is a word written in the constitution of the U.S. and its legal texts, where it has no room if you want it to be religion-neutral, which is IMO the only way to respect freedom of religion.

Think about when the Consitution was written. And I don't remember any references to 'God' in the Constitution at all.

No one thinks that today they will be discriminated for being an atheist... well, unless you try to join a Christian group and declare you don't believe in God .

[DAVOUT]

Imran Siddiqui

You said : That's a silly statement. So what if you disclose if you believe or not? Nothing is going to happen to you for it.

A person detaining public authority does not need to know wheter I am democrat or republicain, because his opinion on the case could be influenced by this information. Samething for the religion or the sexual orientation. Judges should be perfect but most are only human.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
I have been attending court proceedings for years and have yet to hear the phrase "so help you God" uttered by the clerk in swearing a witness.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
I wonder if the US is going to criticize itself for deporting 83,000 legal muslim immigrants (reported by Chicago Tribune a few weeks ago) by order of Ashcroft? Not one of them was accused of a crime. And only 11 out of 83,000 had possible, alleged, unproven, connections to possible terror organizations.

Oh no... the French are banning headscarfs in PUBLIC schools. I wonder if the same dopes whining about this are whining about dress codes in uniformed schools in the US?

This stupid french bashing is so lame.

every discussion to its thread. this is the headscarf thread. not every thread can have the grave importance u wish it to have. or bash the ppl only u wish to bash.

so ur just going to have be a big boy and roll w/ it.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Imran Siddiqui

You said : That's a silly statement. So what if you disclose if you believe or not? Nothing is going to happen to you for it.

A person detaining public authority does not need to know wheter I am democrat or republicain, because his opinion on the case could be influenced by this information. Samething for the religion or the sexual orientation. Judges should be perfect but most are only human.

not saying something is not indicative of something else. why does this simple logic escape u?

[DAVOUT]

I am afraid this is too difficult for you. Forget it.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I am afraid this is too difficult for you. Forget it.

feigning superiority seems to be the tactic of the day here.

maybe after u should say how I use improper grammar. or how u dislike the fact that I'm me and therefore I am obviously wrong.

all very high brow intellectual tactics only capable of being deployed by the elite of our society.

[Kirnwaffen]

The principle of a lay state means you want to allow everyone to have their own religion, but that also means not letting people impose their religious beliefs upon others at school

I guess this is where we disagree. I see expressing one's beliefs and imposing them as fundamentally different. Simply because someone wears a headscarf at school doesn't mean that everyone else has to. As for the harrassment issue, I feel that the government should really be attacking the harrassers through education and punishment than attempting to sweep the differences under the rug. If you think about it, the ban really is a rather superficial way of dealing with this issue.

[Kirnwaffen]

Oh, and as to the use of 'God' in the American legal system, you need to accept that the system as a whole has its foundations in Judeo-Christian beliefs, as does the nation. The use of 'God' has become optional in or eliminated from the oaths that we use in the legal system, and I cannot think of any document in which it is used. I may be wrong, but I believe it is incorrect that to assert that God is invoked in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, certainly, but that document carries no legal weight.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

"the real reason why the Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building? It wasn't "separation of church and state" but was actually "workplace harassment," as you can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and politicians without creating a hostile work environment."

You could not be more wrong if you tried.

Its a joke.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Smilies man, SMILIES .

It is hard to determine who is joking and not, if you don't have a over the internet.

sorry

I am afraid this is too difficult for you

I'm sorry, but just because he doesn't understand your viewpoint doesn't mean it is too difficult... because you obviously don't understand his. Perhaps I should say that this is too difficult for you?

Once again, it was a silly statement. No judge is going to go after you because you didn't say 'under God' in the oath. It is more the exception than the norm.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by yavoon




maybe after u should say how I use improper grammar. or how u dislike the fact that I'm me and therefore I am obviously wrong.

My english grammar is not so good that I can credibly use this tactic. ;D

Let us try to explain again :
If I swear the oath without the reference to god, it indicats that I have made a choice and decided not to ask for the help of god; from that one must deduce that I am an atheist.
On the contrary, if I swear the oath with the reference to god, it is clear that I am a believer.
The option is therefore equivalent to a disclosure of my religious beliefs.