US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, I agree with Kirn. I think he was defending the right to wear those clothing.

same response.

[Kirnwaffen]

I support a secular state, thus I think school prayer, singing hymns in school, having crosses on walls, teaching any religion as truth, etc., shouldn't be allowed. However I think personal dress should be.

He was quite explicit, and, in light of this post, attacking his next post in the way that you did makes no sense.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen


He was quite explicit, and, in light of this post, attacking his next post in the way that you did makes no sense.

obviously not the post I responded to.

keep in mind, I dont read every post. cuz well frankly lotsa posts are like our lil exchange right now. and totally devoid of anything interesting.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by 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.

We’ve been through this before in the ‘opportunist Christian judge/10 Commandments’ thread- the American (and English) common law systems do not have their basis in Judaeo-Christian belief systems- they arise from a body of laws and customs dating from before the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and assorted Norse settlers were converted and Christianized. Don't take my word for it- Thomas Jefferson thought so too. Try to find the ten commandments enshrined in common law- you won't.

The Constitution of the United States indeed does not invoke a Christian (or any other belief system’s) god, and as far as I can recall, clergy of any stripe were conspicuous by their absence from the Constitutional Convention. Which may account for the American Constitution being devoid of any religious references whatsoever.

The phrases 'under God' and 'in God we trust' have sneaked in under the bar as it were, thanks to pressure from religious groups- and to pretend that 'god' singular somehow includes polytheists is silly- which god is a Hindu meant to choose, for example? It also excludes those who have no interest in a deity or no belief in a deity, and why the beliefs of atheists, agnostics or those who care nothing for religion and refuse to be defined primarily in terms of religion (I'm not a-theist or a-gnostic) should somehow be of less weight or importance than followers of religions is, in an avowedly secular state, a puzzlement.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by yavoon
pretty sure I quoted the post I responded to. and while it makes NO mention of the muslims in school. it does give support to the basic premise that all the ppl who support the ban have said.

freedom from religion is good.

so unless u r refering to a different post I will have to disagree w/ u here.

Then let me highlight a bit of my post that you quoted

But as long as they don't force it on anyone else, I don't see why they can't practise it and conform to their religious traditions.

Doesn't quite fit with your strawman of

yes because women walking around wearing religious garments is severe indoctrination and must be stamped out immediately. quick call the department of fashion and have them pass a law that no expression of religion shall be allowed by ppl whilst in the presence of other ppl!

Does it?

I am in the middle. I believe that they should remove religious signs for schools. However that doesn't affect a person who wants to wear a headscarf, or a cross, or declare themselves religious. What it does stop is the school making people sing hymns in assembly, or the headmaster blessing the school. I don't believe in freedom from religion, the right to not be religious and not to have it forced upon you, but I think what you wear is personal expression. It should conform to the usual school standards, for instance, in the UK we have school uniforms, and as part for that "large labels on clothes" are not allowed. Therefore a huge cross on a t-shirt would be against that. Actually, wearing a cross as jewelry would too, but because all necklaces are banned, not because of any religious significance. Thus I would agree with students being allowed to wear a headscarf, but not have organised prayer, for example.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
you do not have the right not to be exposed to elements of that religion in public institutions.

I disagree with that a bit. I think you do to some extent. If a school put a cross up in their hall, I would object. However someone wearing a cross around their neck seems ok to me. Just as someone wearing a headscarf would do too. I didn't object when I met a man on the train with "Jesus Saves" in big letters on his t-shirt. However I would object if the train company put up a religious symbol in the carriage. It's a public train, it shouldn't have any religious signs, but that mans body is private, thus it's up to him.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by yavoon
obviously not the post I responded to.

keep in mind, I dont read every post. cuz well frankly lotsa posts are like our lil exchange right now. and totally devoid of anything interesting.

The only post I'd made at that time. Quite clearly stating, as Kirn and Imran have said, that I support them being able to conform to their religious traditions, but agree with the spirit that religion should not be institutionalised in public school. Indeed, religion has no place in school, but if someone wants to wear a headscarf, that's their decision. Obviously this may change if the school has a uniform.

If you don't read the posts, don't respond to them.

[Kirnwaffen]

Very well, I stand corrected. I do think, however, that 'In God we Trust' is probably the result of the undeniable fact that the vast majority of early American settlers and leaders were Christian. I don't think "sneaked in" is really a fair way to describe that reference.

[Kirnwaffen]

I disagree with that a bit. I think you do to some extent. If a school put a cross up in their hall, I would object. However someone wearing a cross around their neck seems ok to me. Just as someone wearing a headscarf would do too. I didn't object when I met a man on the train with "Jesus Saves" in big letters on his t-shirt. However I would object if the train company put up a religious symbol in the carriage. It's a public train, it shouldn't have any religious signs, but that mans body is private, thus it's up to him.

I didn't mean to imply that public institutions should necessarily be allowed to display religious symbols. I was trying to say that you don't have a right not to ever see a religious symbol, a cross around someone's neck, for instance. Sorry for not being clear.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Drogue

The only post I'd made at that time. Quite clearly stating, as Kirn and Imran have said, that I support them being able to conform to their religious traditions, but agree with the spirit that religion should not be institutionalised in public school. Indeed, religion has no place in school, but if someone wants to wear a headscarf, that's their decision. Obviously this may change if the school has a uniform.

If you don't read the posts, don't respond to them.

I read every post I responded to.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen


I didn't mean to imply that public institutions should necessarily be allowed to display religious symbols. I was trying to say that you don't have a right not to ever see a religious symbol, a cross around someone's neck, for instance. Sorry for not being clear.

I think in general we've mangled a lot of the intent of the writers of the constitution. I think its also pretty safe to say that by freedom of religion they meant freedom of the different christian denominations. not freedom of paganism or aetheism.

[Kirnwaffen]

I think in general we've mangled a lot of the intent of the writers of the constitution. I think its also pretty safe to say that by freedom of religion they meant freedom of the different christian denominations. not freedom of paganism or aetheism.

You're probably right, to some extent. It would be foolish, however, to attempt to apply those standards to the United States today. To say that expanded freedom of/from religion is a 'mangled' interpretation of the constitution is a bit much, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think in general we've mangled a lot of the intent of the writers of the constitution. I think its also pretty safe to say that by freedom of religion they meant freedom of the different christian denominations. not freedom of paganism or aetheism.

Actually that is not true. Madison, for one, did not restrict his freedom to simply Christians.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by 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'.

Well, I care. One point that that passage makes is that it forces you to disclose your belief, or lack of. If you object to being forced to say "under God", then you are showing you are an Athiest, or at least are opening yourself to strong suspicion. In some places, such as bits of the Bible Belt, that may lead to ridicule and even mild persecution. If no-one says it, no-one knows.

Also, IMHO, asking anyone to say that phrase is indoctrinating religion. Religion should not be inherent in the legal system, a state system, and should not be state sponsored. If people want to just say it, that's fine, but nobody should be asked by a public servant to swear on the God/holy book that they may not believe in.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
I didn't mean to imply that public institutions should necessarily be allowed to display religious symbols. I was trying to say that you don't have a right not to ever see a religious symbol, a cross around someone's neck, for instance. Sorry for not being clear.

I thought you might mean that so I changed it to not agreeing a little bit. It seems I do agree with you