France bans religious symbols in schools and hospitals.

[Zkribbler]

Re: France bans religious symbols in schools and hospitals.

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
These include muslim headscarves, jewish skullcaps and christian crosses. People are forbidden from wearing them in certain public buildings.

Small crosses and stars of david, are accepted however. As long as they're small and not too obvious.

So let me get this straight . . small religious symbols--which are worn by Christians--are okay. But headgear like headscarves and skullcaps--neither of which are worn by Christians--are banned. Hmm, I wonder what the message is here.

[Ramo]

I was wondering about French politics regarding these sorts of laws. Are they generally opposed by the Socialists?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Wrong. The Revolution was sure a rough time for the catholic clergy, but it wasn't characterized by massive slaughters similar to St Barthelemew's night in 1572 (where catholics massacred protestants), or like the times of the active cooperation between the King and the Inquisition. I'm sure you know the quote in your sig comes from when French Catholics massacred the Cathares to the very last (heck, I think you taught it to me).

The Revolution involved massive humiliation of priests, especially those who didn't pledge to the revolution, and massive capture of lands that were protected by the king's regime. That's not nice, but that's not comparable to the horrors the Church has guided us to do.

The quote comes from the French Baron who led the expedition against the Cathars.
IIRC the Great Terror was supposed to have taken somewhere around one half million lives. Priests who refused to pledge themselves to the new state religion were considered enemies of the state and were executed after a good clean show trial. Regions which resisted the new state deisitic religion were subjected to brutal military campaigns. IIRC the Vendee was virtually depopulated. There were other provinces which were also heavily decimated simply because of rumors that the old religion was being secretly practiced.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Social Democrats or real Socialists?

[Ramo]

The Socialist Party - Social Democrats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd assume the Social Democrats (who are really just French center-lefties, Ramo) were for this law. After all, this was in the wings before the recent elections, when the Social Democrats had the power in the General Assembly.

[Ramo]

Hmm... I thought Chirac's party was in power before the election (and still are, except have much more power).

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, before the last election, Chirac was President, but the Socialists under Jospin and Raffarin were in charge of the legislature. The last election saw the Gaullist parties take control.

[Mazarin]

the more I think about it, the more I'm in favor of banning all religious signs from schools.

As Spiffor pointed out, only a minority of the French muslim community insists on wearing the headscarf which is -IMO- a symbol of an extreme Koran interpretation. If an adult woman wants to wear it -fine by me, but we're talking about children here who have hardly been able to form an opinion on religion: they are already heavily influenced by they families and religious signs are serving as tools of separation at schools: e.g. The German headscarf-wearing teacher that was bewailing against the interdiction of headscarfs often used the arguement that girls who were wearing headscarfs themselves often asked her for advice while they'd have never dared asking a teacher who wore none. This demonstrates that there is an indoctrination in many families against any "sinners": these girls -often oppressed in families and thought to be obeying to men for the rest of their lives- are prevented from getting any different input that might let them think again on whether the religion they were born into is the right one for them. Getting rid of all religious/political signs at schools might help communication between different groups and help pupils decide by themselves. We could, of course, just ignore this issue in name of "religious freedom" and raise new generations of extremists.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Mazarin
the more I think about it, the more I'm in favor of banning all religious signs from schools.

As Spiffor pointed out, only a minority of the French muslim community insists on wearing the headscarf which is -IMO- a symbol of an extreme Koran interpretation. If an adult woman wants to wear it -fine by me, but we're talking about children here who have hardly been able to form an opinion on religion: they are already heavily influenced by they families and religious signs are serving as tools of separation at schools: e.g. The German headscarf-wearing teacher that was bewailing against the interdiction of headscarfs often used the arguement that girls who were wearing headscarfs themselves often asked her for advice while they'd have never dared asking a teacher who wore none. This demonstrates that there is an indoctrination in many families against any "sinners": these girls -often oppressed in families and thought to be obeying to men for the rest of their lives- are prevented from getting any different input that might let them think again on whether the religion they were born into is the right one for them. Getting rid of all religious/political signs at schools might help communication between different groups and help pupils decide by themselves. We could, of course, just ignore this issue in name of "religious freedom" and raise new generations of extremists.

it seems to me u simply dislike freedom. as when the result u get is unpleasant u just restrict it.

its not freedom if the results by inspection has to be favorable to you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We could, of course, just ignore this issue in name of "religious freedom" and raise new generations of extremists.

I think your view is counterproductive. MORE extremists are raised by banning the headscarfs. Why? Because what will their parents tell their kids? You can't wear the headscarf because France is anti-Muslim. The kids will believe it and will not listen to debate which may be anti-Muslim.

Let them wear their scarfs and then use debate to persuade them otherwise. That is the way it should be done.

And parents do have the right to raise their kids with the morals and values they see fit.

[Mazarin]

well...if I see that something obviously goes extremely wrong (like the mentioned uprise of islamism in western Europe), then yes, I really think something has to be done. Simply ignoring the problem and putting the most obvious crimes to court (the greatest part -like violence at home remains hidden in most cases) is not enough for me. If freedom of religion implies letting children grow in an athmosphere where they are indoctrinated to disregard the most essential values of the society they live in -I'm willing to watch at my concept of religious freedom and expand it to "freedom to chose ones religion". It is not an easy question, but you sometimes need to have a closer look when one fundamental right is hurting another (to take one extreme example: If a religion implies cannibalistic rituals -am I going to do something against it or am I going to wait until the rituals have been performed and judge the participants according to laws). Freedoms of one person can be limiting the freedoms of others: giving up the freedom of wearing religious signs at school seems like a good deal when spreading freedom of choice, equality and free thought. in my book, at least.

[Sava]

Not that one thing has anything to do with another, but the United States is the only Industrialized nation to have school prayer in public schools, and we have by far, the highest murder rate... in total deaths and per capita...

but not that one thing has anything to do with another

[DAVOUT]

Mazarin, excision of the girls is an actual example of religious practice that is NOT Muslim and we have had to forbid.

[Mazarin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think your view is counterproductive. MORE extremists are raised by banning the headscarfs. Why? Because what will their parents tell their kids? You can't wear the headscarf because France is anti-Muslim. The kids will believe it and will not listen to debate which may be anti-Muslim.

Let them wear their scarfs and then use debate to persuade them otherwise. That is the way it should be done.

One can argue about this point and you might be right. We shouldn't, however, just continue to ignore the problems we have now, because they're going to grow if we don't do anything now.

And parents do have the right to raise their kids with the morals and values they see fit.

In my opinion, this right is not existant when it comes to extremely anti-constitutional values. Children are not their parents' property: They need to be taken care of and raised with respect for their personality: If parents abuse their children physically, they'll obviously will be taken away from them. If parents teach a girl that she's inferior to men by default; if they teach a child to belong to some "ruler race" and have the God-given right to kill others, they're abusing them mentally and should not have the right to continue this. I see a conflict of rights here: the parents' right to raise their child -and the child's right not to be abused in the name of ideologies. It isn't simple to solve, but we should be aware that such conflicts exist and be willing to solve them instead of simply relying on some artificial principle.