Death to France!

[Chemical Ollie]

Do French Jews need to get their 4skins back before taking a shower in the school gym?

[Spiffor]

This is an interesting suggestion, I'll suggest it to the police ministry

[Tamerlin]

WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT RACIAL PURITY AND OTHER STUPIDITIES COMING STRAIGHT FROM YOUR IMAGINATION, I HAVE NEVER EXHIBITED SUCH BEHAVIOR, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT THE SUBJECT OR IF YOU ARE ONLY POSTING HERE TO WRITE ANTI-FRENCH RANTINGS... F**K O** NED. I WON'T READ NOR REPLY TO ANY OF YOUR POST ANYMORE...

I WILL BE GLAD TO BE BANNED FOR THIS ONE AS I AM REALLY FED UP WITH SOME AMERICAN POSTERS AND THEIR STUPID PRECONCEIVED IDEAS AND THEIR INABILITY TO LISTEN AT WHAT THE OTHERS HAVE TO SAY...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT RACIAL PURITY AND OTHER STUPIDITIES COMING STRAIGHT FROM YOUR IMAGINATION, I HAVE NEVER EXHIBITED SUCH BEHAVIOR, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT THE SUBJECT OR IF YOU ARE ONLY POSTING HERE TO WRITE ANTI-FRENCH RANTINGS... F**K O** NED. I WON'T READ NOR REPLY TO ANY OF YOUR POST ANYMORE...

I WILL BE GLAD TO BE BANNED FOR THIS ONE AS I AM REALLY FED UP WITH SOME AMERICAN POSTERS AND THEIR STUPID PRECONCEIVED IDEAS AND THEIR INABILITY TO LISTEN AT WHAT THE OTHERS HAVE TO SAY...

before you get "bent out of shape" as we say you might want to spend some more time here and get a better sense for the particular poster you are responding to, and how seriously or unseriously he is taken, even by those who find themselves "on the same side". I think you will find it illuminating.

In any case i think this particular issue has been debated here beyond the point where any new light will be shed. Better to wait and see how the law will be implemented, how the muslim world reacts, and then discuss those things.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is an interesting suggestion, I'll suggest it to the police ministry

"Why are you crying mademoiselle?"
"he, he, PROSELYTIZED me on the schoolyard when no one was around!!!!! BWAAAAH!!!!!"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Charles, when I read something like this, I am amazed and ecouraged. In many Muslim countries, Christians are not welcome at all.

Ned, ignore him or laugh at him, but please don't take him seriously. That post was excrutiating to read - learn to call BS once in a while!

[Tamerlin]

I am sorry lord of the mark, and I would like to apologize to all the american posters around here (at least to those that are really trying to debate at all) but this time Ned really got me angry.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't understand why everyone is quoting "muslim religious scholars" as authorities on whether or not it is a religious obligation. If I think something is obligated by my religion, then it IS. My religious beliefs ARE my religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

skywalker

[Ben Kenobi]

Little muslim girls wearing scarves in the public schools are a threat to an essential principle of the French Republic.

Then perhaps such principle ought not to exist. As you have said, this law was not designed to deal with the Muslims, so perhaps the time has come for France to allow religious expression within their schools. While it is true that crosses are not a requirement for Christians, (I don't wear one myself), I would think that one ought to permit Christians to wear crosses if they felt the desire to do so. The same can be said for the Yarmulke and the headscarves. It seems ludicrious that if the very act of wearing a cross could threaten an essential principle of the french republic. Why not make more robust rather than fragile laws?

[KrazyHorse]

I think that religious expression should be allowed exactly as much as any other tyore of exoression.

[Tamerlin]

I agree but the problem is that the Laic status of the French Republic is an essential part of it. As far as I am concerned religion does not have a place in our public schools but I am not a believer (though I am not against religions I consider them to be a personal affair) and I am not ready to allow conspicuous religious symbols in our public schools.

The problem is deeper than it seems, allowing such symbols would mean that the French laws, and even the teachings themselves, can be differentl because of the religion of the recipient. As far as I am concerned that is something I find hard to admit and that is not allowed by the Constitution of 1958.

Moreover, allowing the conspicuous religious symbols in the public schools would open the doors to other demands that could seriously undermine the French Republic.

Religious expression is allowed and is even protected as Freedom of Speech is also a constitutional right in France. The believers have thus the right, and somehow the duty, to say they disagree with the French law, but that does not allow them to disobey the law.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
My religious beliefs ARE my religion.

So, if your religion requires you to expose your schlong and to piss on your neighbour 5 times a day, we should allow it in class?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

So, if your religion requires you to expose your schlong and to piss on your neighbour 5 times a day, we should allow it in class?

no, but then you shouldnt allow it even if he was part of a community of a hundred million all of whose official clergy unanamously called for it. What i think hes trying to say is that disagreement among official clergy is irrelevant to determining whether it is a religious belief or not.

[Ned]

Spiffor, I think you go too far in your example. The United States had to grapple with this issue when the Mormons wanted polygamy and said that this was not only not prohibited by their religion but "required" by their religion, which is probably not true. The Supreme Court ruled that polygamy was repugnant to Western civilization and that laws banning the practice were not a constitutional restriction on religious liberty. I think France could do well by following the US Supreme Court in its own practices.

Many may not know this, but the proximate cause of the great war between the Romans in the Jews that resulted in the virtual extinction of the Jewish people in the Roman Empire was caused by Hadrian's proclamation against circumcision. That war was the most bitter the Romans ever fought and required them to send legions from all over Empire to eventually win. After the war, Hadrian reversed the edict and again permitted circumcision. Had he knew in advance the reaction his proclamation would cause, I am sure that he would never had issued it.

This illustrates the difference, in my view, between a practice which is permitted by religion and a practice which is required by religion. One truly cannot have religious freedom while banning or not accommodating a practice that is required by a religion.

On the issue of scarves, there seems to be at least a significant portion of the Muslim religion that believes that the wearing of scarves is a required practice. With respect to these Muslims, denying them the right to wear scarves violates their religion.

The next step in the analysis (if one were following the US Supreme Court) on whether this ban is justified would be whether the practice of wearing scarves is fundamentally incompatible with and offensive to Western civilization. If so, the practice of wearing scarves could be banned even if it was required by religion.

Clearly, the wearing of scarves is not the same thing as pulling it out and pissing on the floor. The wearing of scarves is common among women throughout the world including the women of the Western world. Is not something that offends the very sensibilities of Western civilization.

I would suggest therefore that any law that would prohibit the wearing of scarves to those Muslims who are required to wear them by their religion is a violation of their constitutional right to religious freedom.

But clearly to the vast majority of Muslims, the wearing of scarves is not required by their religion but is more required by their culture. Even so, France believes they can ban this practice because it is an ostentatious religious display.

The term, "ostentatious religious display" implies that the display is not the customary garb of that religious faith just as wearing large crucifixes is not customary to Christians. Now, if the wearing of scarves is part of Muslim culture, the banning of the wearing of scarves by Muslim women has nothing to do with banning ostentatious religious displays. Rather it demonstrates intolerance of the Muslim culture.