The Fwench.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MrFun
I would think indoctrination requires government sanctioning.

You would be wrong then

A government-sactioned indoctination is probably the most efficient one, but yet we have many indoctrined religious extremists in france, a place where you can expect the State not to endorse it.

How is that even possible?

[MrFun]

Again, indoctrination is not, IMO, the same as some individuals expressing their faith in a particular religion.

I would think indoctrination requires government sanctioning.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MrFun
Again, I still do not understand how allowing people to wear anything that expresses their religion -- allowing anyone of any religion -- constitutes government-sanctioned indoctrination of one, specific religion over another.

The main difference between the Americans and the French is that the Americans would fear anything done by their governments, but see no problem if a private party does it. In France, we do not only oppose the endoctination by the State: we oppose endoctrination by anybody.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Akka




On a principle point of view : personnal opinions about religions and politics, has nothing to do in school.
Well, it can be argued that it's just our values, and not a universal rule.
As for me, I stand by these values.

here in america we debate our religious and political points of view in school quite often.

I was unaware in france that the "head in sand" technique had been adopted.

[Akka]

Originally posted by skywalker
The STATE has no business in forcing religion on students. Restricting the expression of the students IS wrong. Expression by the students is NOT "religion being mixed with the state" - rather, the repression of it is almost an enforcement of atheism by the State.

Ah, well, I said it :

Originally posted by Akka
(of course, I'm aware that there is plenty of people who mix "neutrality" with "religion-bashing", but well, if the concept of neutrality is lost for them, I'm not to blame...).

I'm just soooo surprised

Originally posted by MrFun
Again, I still do not understand how allowing people to wear anything that expresses their religion -- allowing anyone of any religion -- constitutes government-sanctioned indoctrination of one, specific religion over another.

On a symbolic point of view : it's run by the state, hence it's neutral when it comes to religions and political opinions. Hence no religion nor political opinion for everybody representing or under the responsability of the State.
Seems pretty easy to understand for me.

On a practical point of view, it's hard to say when ends a statement of opinion, and when starts proselytism. Saying "no religions nor politics at school" is a good, simple and fair way to avoid the bickering about "but no I wasn't proselytising (sp ?), I was just saying/displaying what I thought".

On a principle point of view : personnal opinions about religions and politics, has nothing to do in school.
Well, it can be argued that it's just our values, and not a universal rule.
As for me, I stand by these values.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Akka

Not something that is religious, political or commercial.

Of course, you're welcome to ask questions about religions, publicity, history, political parties, etc.
But it must be restricted to facts, not propaganda or proselytism or trying to get bucks for it.
It's a place of learning (=> knowledge, critical thinking), NOT a place of endoctrinement (of course, I'm aware that there is plenty of people who mix "neutrality" with "religion-bashing", but well, if the concept of neutrality is lost for them, I'm not to blame...).

Again, I still do not understand how allowing people to wear anything that expresses their religion -- allowing anyone of any religion -- constitutes government-sanctioned indoctrination of one, specific religion over another.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
I sincerely hope that the French wins this cultural battle and causes all religion to wither away.

I hope religion withers away. I hope it is not "hurried along" by repression of expression.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Akka

I don't remember any law saying that people aren't free to believe in what they want, or prevented to build and attend to place suiting their beliefs, or anything like that.

UNLESS, it goes against the laws of the state.
The laws of the state say : religion is a personnal matter, that should NOT be mixed with the State.
Public school are run by the state.
Hence, no religion in public school.


Some are able to understand the concept of neutral ground and keeping personnal opinions outside state-run institutions.
Others just shout "fascists" and claim there is religious oppression.

The STATE has no business in forcing religion on students. Restricting the expression of the students IS wrong. Expression by the students is NOT "religion being mixed with the state" - rather, the repression of it is almost an enforcement of atheism by the State.

btw, the whole "the scarf is/is not a religious requirement" argument is crap - if someone believes something is a religious requirement, then it IS, by definition. My religion is what I believe in.

[Akka]

Originally posted by MrFun


Actually, I do have an annoyance with dress codes for schools.

So in public schools then, you shouldn't express your opinion on ANYTHING, since that would be -- gasp -- publicizing.

Not something that is religious, political or commercial.

Of course, you're welcome to ask questions about religions, publicity, history, political parties, etc.
But it must be restricted to facts, not propaganda or proselytism or trying to get bucks for it.
It's a place of learning (=> knowledge, critical thinking), NOT a place of endoctrinement (of course, I'm aware that there is plenty of people who mix "neutrality" with "religion-bashing", but well, if the concept of neutrality is lost for them, I'm not to blame...).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Akka

1) As students, they are under the authority of the State as long as they are in school. The State is responsible for everything that happens to them while they are in the school area at school hours.
As such, they are concerned by state neutrality on religion.

2) School is a place of learning. Displaying personnal opinions about politics and religions is forbidden, as it's not "learning", it's "publicising".

3) Consider it a dress code. You don't have problems with schools that require uniforms, I suppose. Then it's the same. The dress code of state school is "no religious signs".

Actually, I do have an annoyance with dress codes for schools.

So in public schools then, you shouldn't express your opinion on ANYTHING, since that would be -- gasp -- publicizing.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


And your opinions are improving in what way?

it is a general idea that allowing a free exchange of opinions and ideas facilitates a free and better nation.

do u not subscribe to this idea?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by yavoon
actually in the "free world" the free exchange of ideas and opinions is considered the cornerstone to learning and improvement of a society.

And your opinions are improving in what way?

[Tripledoc]

I sincerely hope that the French wins this cultural battle and causes all religion to wither away.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Akka

1) As students, they are under the authority of the State as long as they are in school. The State is responsible for everything that happens to them while they are in the school area at school hours.
As such, they are concerned by state neutrality on religion.

2) School is a place of learning. Displaying personnal opinions about politics and religions is forbidden, as it's not "learning", it's "publicising".

3) Consider it a dress code. You don't have problems with schools that require uniforms, I suppose. Then it's the same. The dress code of state school is "no religious signs".

actually in the "free world" the free exchange of ideas and opinions is considered the cornerstone to learning and improvement of a society.

u should join us someday.

[Akka]

Originally posted by MrFun
Then they do things the weird way in France -- I fail to see the logic behind prohibiting people from expressing their religion in public schools run by the state, since that individual's expression is not necessarily equated to government endorsement of the religion.

1) As students, they are under the authority of the State as long as they are in school. The State is responsible for everything that happens to them while they are in the school area at school hours.
As such, they are concerned by state neutrality on religion.

2) School is a place of learning. Displaying personnal opinions about politics and religions is forbidden, as it's not "learning", it's "publicising".

3) Consider it a dress code. You don't have problems with schools that require uniforms, I suppose. Then it's the same. The dress code of state school is "no religious signs".