US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Strawman, anyone? Who said anything about an FBI agent taking his team aside for a prayer session? We are talking about a speech to agents that an agent makes as part of his job and during it he quotes Scripture. There is nothing wrong or illegal about that.

Umm. What's the difference between one and the other? Only the amount of time wasted, no?

So how is it a strawman? We all know that the 5 seconds of "God Bless America" isn't a serious issue, but is it different, other than in scale, than giving a 20 minute diatribe on what Deuteronomy says about such and such a topic?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, that's why I said "creating a hostile work environment". Does that apply only to sexual harassment or to other things as well? Say I were to start making sex jokes in class. Even if I don't give people bad marks when they don't respond, I can still be really ****ed by what I've done.

Hostile work environment definetly requires more than quoting Scripture while giving speeches he is required to give to his agents. For one, it isn't 'severe' enough. To qualify for severity he would have to give the impression that only those people that follow his religion get promotions.

Again, AFAIK that isn't true. Why would it be that you can get in trouble just for making sex jokes, yet to get in trouble for religion you'd have to give the impression that somebody's going to lose their job if they don't pray along?

[Imran Siddiqui]

When he's addressing Parliament then he's acting as PM, and I expect him to be more circumspect.

What you expect doesn't matter here. Isn't Martin still talking as the head of the Liberal party? Maybe he'll make a joke or two while giving his speech. Does that make the joke an official government joke?

You cannot seperate the beliefs from the man, and the man has a right to his beliefs under our Constitution. And he also has freedom of speech. Words in a speech don't 'establish' anything.

[Imran Siddiqui]

AFAIK that isn't true. Why would it be that you can get in trouble just for making sex jokes, yet to get in trouble for religion you'd have to give the impression that somebody's going to lose their job if they don't pray along?

Once again, severity requirement. You can't get in too much trouble under a sexual harassment claim if you make a few infrequent sexual jokes, especially if it the first time you've been informed on.

How is quoting scripture in speeches religious harassment? It isn't nearly 'severe' enough. You need more.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Words in a speech don't 'establish' anything.

Side issue, but are you still under the impression that "respecting an establishment of" and "establishing a" mean the same thing?

We really need to talk to your English teacher...

[Mazarin]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Where that politician leads is between him and the voters, so long as he stays within the bounds of the relevant constitution.

Exactly. The Americans simply don't insist on their politicians keeping God out of their business -many Europeans do.
What would people think if he added some other personal phrase at the end of his speeches. "I love my wife" or "I like vegetables"? He's free to do so, but he is expected to remain official.

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.

France is one of the countries where separation between state and church goes furthest and has the longest tradition -they'd never introduce religion as a subject on their schools or have the state take taxes for the churches like Germany. I highly doubt such a regulation would be possible here.

Ned,

It is interesting that any and all discussions like this end up discussing the United States.

But just one more point or question. What if Chirac were in charge of Iraq instead of the US. Would he try to impose his brand of secularism on the larglely Muslim Iraqi's. If not, why not?

It's too easy to get to the offense for us
I don't see why a country should impose its values on others -do you?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Side issue, but are you still under the impression that "respecting an establishment of" and "establishing a" mean the same thing?

We really need to talk to your English teacher...

Because if you do, then a law prohibiting headscarves in all public places would be fine by you, constitution-wise, right?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Mazarin

Ned,

It's too easy to get to the offense for us
I don't see why a country should impose its values on others -do you?

Now that is a good question that the US has had to face several times in the last 150 years. We have been the occupying power in

1) the South
2) Cuba
3) Peuto Rico
4) Phillipines
5) Germany
6) Japan
7) South Korea
8) Vietnam
9) Iraq

Our attempt to impose our ideas on the South failed. We tried for about 40 years in Cuba. But once we stopped, Cuba descended into dictatorship. The Philippines was hard, but we won against a guerilla resistance force. We imposed our values and today the Phillipines is fairly civilized. Pueto Rico is still occuppied -- but willing so. Peuto Rico likes being part of the US. Germany, Japan and South Korea are all unmitigate successes. Vietnam was an unmitigated disaster.

Iraq?

The jury is still out. Push comes to shove if the Shi'ites want to create an Islamic Republic. What do we do then?

[The Vagabond]

I tend to agree with Chirac. It seems to me that human society would greatly benefit if people were "religionless" at least on some social occasions and in some kind of religion-free zones.

[Mazarin]

we're back discussing the US -mission accomplished.

I really think that the risks of the Iraq war have been discussed in length in other threads -legitimation of invasions, possible positive and negative reactions in other Islamic countries, etc. no need to go through that here again.

[Tripledoc]

How can any sane person compare the death penalty to the banning of a scarf.

Well, only the lying scumbags of the Republican Party of course.

Calling republicans lying scumbags is of course a misdemenour.
In all actuality they are a bunch of hellbound motherfvcking azzhole sons of beatches.

And hey, stop fvcking masturbating. It ruins your argumentation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mazarin
we're back discussing the US -mission accomplished.

I take it as an admission of the weakness of your case. Sad to see the Poly French contingent fall to UR's level.

[Mazarin]

glad to be taken as a representative of the Poly French contingent

[DinoDoc]

I don't know if you are or aren't and don't particularly care. It's just that the rest of the French Polytubbies dancing around the issue was disconcerting. I mean I normally find Tripledoc stupidly annoying but it got to be a little much.

[Ramo]

It's a ****ty law. Kids in a public school ought to be able to express themselves how they want as long as they don't disrupt class. It's not the state's job to prohibit unpopular clothing styles. And headscarves aren't not necessarily bad. Yes, they can signify the subjugation of women, but they can also be simple expressions of culture or religion. Schools should not be banning headscarves, but be teaching kids appreciation for secular freedoms - that they can choose to wear or not wear them.