US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by 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

Perhaps I should say that this is too difficult for you?

Quel esprit !

[q]
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.

I did not say the judge was going to go after me, but that it was a disclosure of my beliefs, and that such a disclosure is contrary to the freedom of belief.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
If you think about it, the ban really is a rather superficial way of dealing with this issue.

Did anybody deny this?

When it comes to the issue of women's submission, this law is barely a solution. When it comes to integration, this law is barely a solution.
The real reason behind this law is the attachment of French people to the principle of Laïcité, to the idea that school should be a religion and politics neutral zone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Yes, we GET that... we are saying 'WHO CARES'? It doesn't influence anything in anyway. In fact it is rarer to hear 'under God'.

[Kirnwaffen]

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

The problem with your position is that, in the United States, not using 'God' is considered to have no connotation. You can't deduce anything from it because it could indicate a number of very different circumstances.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Imram, I think it was a joke

And if I'm right, it was pretty funny

EDIT: this was already mentioned

[Kuciwalker]

Whether or not people will be "harassed" about not wearing a headscarf is no justification for banning them altogether. It is the harassers who are guilty of something.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen


The problem with your position is that, in the United States, not using 'God' is considered to have no connotation. You can't deduce anything from it because it could indicate a number of very different circumstances.

I am prepared to accept that as much as some posters accept that their interpretation of the ban has not in France the meaning they give to it.

Incidentally I wonder what idea of god the US citizens have, since it can be evoked without connotation indicating the reasons why he was evoked.

[GhengisFarb™]

90% of Americans view god=money.

[notyoueither]

Education is cumpulsory, yes?

Head coverings are compulsory for some people from some sects, yes?

Does anyone not see that as repression of peaceful practice of religious convictions?

[Kuciwalker]

.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Does anyone not see that as repression of peaceful practice of religious convictions?

Yes, and?

[Dr Strangelove]

What happens if muslim girl has to have chemotherapy treatment and looses her hair? Will she be denied the use of a headscarf to cover her bald head?

Suppose a protest group decides that they will start greeting people by mentioning their religious affiliation, such as: "Hi, I'm Ahmed, and I'm a Muslim."
"Hello, I'm Marie and I'm a Roman Catholic."
Would the French nation toss these naughty children out of school?
Come to think of it, what would they do about a kid named "Mohammed" or one named "Jesus"? Their very names would reek of religion. Would they be refused enrollment?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, and?

That's the fundamental disagreement... which I don't know if other French posters here realize. To North Americans that would be a grave... well, sin .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
What happens if muslim girl has to have chemotherapy treatment and looses her hair? Will she be denied the use of a headscarf to cover her bald head?

Since the students are to be ratted out by the schools' director, you can expect a case-to-case basis. That's like saying the law won't stop the headaches we had for a decade.

Suppose a protest group decides that they will start greeting people by mentioning their religious affiliation

A protest organization is assumed to be forbidden at school. Political expression is supposed to be banned from school the same as religious expression. Now, of course, there is more or less tolerance depending on the school's director; but I haven't seen any school tolerate the formal existence of a political or religious organization within its walls.

[Kuciwalker]

Why shouldn't students be allowed to express political thoughts in school in a non-disruptive manner? Unless they are actually hindering education, what's the point? It sounds almost Orwellian.