US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by yavoon

fear not yav to the rescue.

if he sez "gov't should encourage catholicism and fund a public catholic school system. thats a view of state endorsement of rleigion.

if he thanks god or asks his god to bless something he holds dear. that is not.

Thanks for the effort, but you do not visibly clarify the point. If you dont mind I would like Imran answer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's the same answer. Just because he is the President does not mean that he is not an individual as well. When he utters references to God he is exercising his free exercise rights, even in the middle of a political speech.

[Mazarin]

what does "yav" mean? I couldn't find it in my dictionary.

The "in God we trust" and "God bless America" stuff just shows that Americans are less rigid in their separation of religion and state than the French: it surely is strange to me, but it reflects different traditions.

What about oaths in France/the US? Do you have a god-related formulation, too, when people are sworn-in? I remember that Schröder was the first chancellor to employ a neutral formulation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

what does "yav" mean?

Yavoon

The "in God we trust" and "God bless America" stuff just shows that Americans are less rigid in their separation of religion and state than the French

Yes, we have equal respect for free exercise of religion as well. We try to balance both.

What about oaths in France/the US? Do you have a god-related formulation, too, when people are sworn-in?

Only if you want. You can decide not to have a 'So help me, God' when you are sworn.

[Ned]

Mazarin, Yes our oaths have historically included God. Today they have been softened quite a bit. One no longer has to put his hand on the Bible in court and conclude, "so help me god." But the oath for president of the United States still ends that way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the oath for president of the United States still ends that way.

Only because they wish to. You can opt out of that phrasing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by yavoon


inane grammar nazi as a counter argument? mad skill u got there buddy.

I stopped arguing with you because I don't think this is that important a distinction, but it really does hurt my eyes. So it's not even supposed to be a counterargument, dude. Chill.

And would you please not type it. God damn, you'll be the first non-insane person I put on my ignore list since GP.

No it isn't. When he is speaking as President he is still an individual. Even the president has free exercise rights and he doesn't give that up when he is speaking.

When he is speaking in his official capacity he does not have free exercise of speech. Otherwise, why is it that you're not allowed to tell your boss to **** off at work?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, having "in God we trust" on the money illustrates that at one time America had no problem acknowledging God. Moreover, we then did not view such acknowledgment to be a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause because we thought that that clause had to do with the establishment of "a" particular religion over other religions" as opposed to the establishment of monotheism over atheism or polytheism.

You mean when "In God We Trust" was added to US currency almost a hundred years after 1776?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's the same answer. Just because he is the President does not mean that he is not an individual as well. When he utters references to God he is exercising his free exercise rights, even in the middle of a political speech.

So he is on the job, then jumps off the job for the 10 seconds it takes to utter that phrase, then goes back on the job?



Please...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Mazarin
What does make France appear like a totalitarian society to you?

Uhmmmmm,...

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because schools are the State's thing, and that the State does the regulation of what expression and clothing is allowed, and what is not?

Sorry, Spiff, but when I read this I could have sworn I heard an echo of Orwell.

Now, I grant that the French have reasons for their approach based in a long history with state and religion and things going wrong when the two mix. Much of Europe have the same claims, if not more. However, the direction proposed to be taken by the French in this case is completely alien not just to the Yanks, but too many or most Canadians too.

In fact, there was a recent uproar involving Sikhs and the uniform of the Mounties. A lot of people were upset, but in the end the consensus was that it was better to have a Mountie with a scarlet turban than to exclude observant Sikhs from the national police force.

In short, my view would be that no state has any business meddling in the consciences of any of its citizens.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


So he is on the job, then jumps off the job for the 10 seconds it takes to utter that phrase, then goes back on the job?



Please...

Are you intentionally missing his point?

The President's religious views are his or hers to hold, and no one has any business restricting his or her expression of them. It might affect re-election chances though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When he is speaking in his official capacity he does not have free exercise of speech.

Of course he does.

So he is on the job, then jumps off the job for the 10 seconds it takes to utter that phrase, then goes back on the job?

When did I ever say that? He is always on the job as President. He is allowed to be a personal individual as well.

Otherwise, why is it that you're not allowed to tell your boss to **** off at work?

Cause he's your boss. You CAN tell him that, but your boss can excersize his right to fire your ass . Bush's bosses (the people) can fire his ass as well, but only every four years... as per the contract .

[KrazyHorse]

The President's religious views are his or hers to hold, and no one has any business restricting his or her expression of them. It might affect re-election chances though.

Uh, are you deliberately missing my point?

When he's on the job, he most certainly is not allowed complete freedom of expression, for the same reason that a company can tell their employees what to wear to work, whether or not they can talk about politics, how they decorate their cubicles, and even whether or not they say "God" at work.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Otherwise, why is it that you're not allowed to tell your boss to **** off at work?

Cause he's your boss. You CAN tell him that, but your boss can excersize his right to fire your ass . Bush's bosses (the people) can fire his ass as well, but only every four years... as per the contract .

This doesn't make any sense.

You're claiming that he's not bound by the Constitution because his freedom of expression gets him out of jail. I point out that you're not guaranteed freedom of expression when your time's not your own (i.e. when somebody else is paying you for it), and then you tell me that this doesn't matter because you can fire him if you want because of it.

The original point still stands. He is technically violating the Constitution by endorsing a particular brand of religion while acting in his official capacity.

[notyoueither]

Well, under US law he is quite free to express his religious preferences. He'll have a bit harder time passing laws that shore his God up and exclude the divinities of others. That's the difference.

Those are the regulations of his job.