US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Well Constitutionally they do. The Establishment Clause referes to establishing religion. You know, favoring a religion over another under the law? It says 'respecting an establishment of religion', ie, dealing with establishing religion.

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

You are forgetting that pesky free exercise clause.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are forgetting that pesky free enterprise clause.

Never heard of the free "enterprise" clause.

[Ramo]

free enterprise clause

Looks like you've been reading too many of Berz's posts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like you never made a typo before, baboons .

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Ned, Castro overthrown Batista which was himself a dictator supported by the US.

The only "idea" supported by the US is free-market. And rarely does it get along with such things as democracy or human rights.
But I'll stop right there, before it gets way too OT.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like you never made a typo before, baboons .

/me throws poo at Imran

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well that'd be an improvement over your normal tossings.

[DinoDoc]

Thank you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anyway, just say KH is wrong and get on with it .

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Ned, Castro overthrown Batista which was himself a dictator supported by the US.

The only "idea" supported by the US is free-market. And rarely does it get along with such things as democracy or human rights.
But I'll stop right there, before it gets way too OT.

I know. What I was talking about it the Platt Amendment that permitted US intervention on behalf of democracy. Once that was withdrawn, Cuba had nothing but dictators including Batista.

The point is whether anyone has the right to impose its values on another culture. It seems to me that we had more success when we did.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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?

u certainly are allowed to tell ur boss to **** off at work. what gave u the impression that that was in anyway illegal?

and ignoring me through frustration manifested in a petty grammar disagreement only shows the weakness of ur character.

[Whoha]

"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."

[Kirnwaffen]

I'm disappointed in the stance taken by the French government primarily because I believe that tolerance is the cornerstone of any modern republic. The legislation proposed by Mr. Chirac is totally anathema to that principle.

As to the president's religious remarks, I say let him make them. He has not used his position to degrade or slander other faiths, and he has not attempted to actively further the agenda of his church. I know you will say that he has, but the truth is that this president tends to act on personal conviction, which is basically what most presidents have done.

[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.

[LDiCesare]

From the oath of Citizenship quoted above:

so help me God.

How is an atheist or polytheist supposed to say that? The oath of citizenship implies you are a monotheist, so there is no freedom of religion in the U.S. until you change that period. God has no place in any official text or any official document as it is discrimination against atheists and polytheists.

About the scarves:
I said it was seen as intimidation. It is. Some people in France are afraid that all girls will soon have to wear scarves. So the intimidation part exists, even though the fear may not be founded. Looking at what happens in Turkey is interesting, though. Turkey is secularian (ist?) but people there promote the Sharia. France doesn't want such a situation to happen, so Chirac takes measures against this. I don't think it's a good idea, but the point that these scarves cause fear is true. It would be better to educate people not to fear difference rather than to ban difference, but then it's no easy task.