The Fwench.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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
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]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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?

Ok -- indoctrination can occur in various forms, only one of which could involve government sanctioning.


there

[mrmitchell]

Spiffor, an individual is free to his right to indoctrinate. Just so long as the other individual remains free to his right to choose to be indoctrinated or not.

The guv'ment can't do such indoctrination, because whenever it acts it's representing the entire nation. And that whole "church-state" separation thing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Akka
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

You're actually wrong here - the state isn't being neutral with respect to religion, it's SUPPRESSING religion. Being neutral is no advocacy or suppression of any religious view, including atheism.

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.

The state is neutral when it comes to religions and political opinions. It's run by the state. Therefore it is neutral wrt those things. However, it is completely irrational to then suggest that those under its responsibility must ALSO be neutral wrt those things. Should prisoners, who are the responsibility of an organization run by the state (a jail), also be required to be "neutral" wrt religion?

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".

What's wrong with "proselytising"? It is merely a negative term for trying to convince others of your point of view. If an action is specifically disruptive to the classroom, or ends up with physical harm to a student or property, then yes, it should be stopped, but not because it is "proselytising".

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.

Why don't they have anything to do with school? Students most of all need to learn the importance of independent thought, not be spoon-fed government propoganda.

[MrFun]

Isn't it possible to separate the concepts of individual expression from indoctrination?

[Kuciwalker]

"Indoctrinate" is, like proselytise, just a negative term for "convince".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Spiffor, an individual is free to his right to indoctrinate. Just so long as the other individual remains free to his right to choose to be indoctrinated or not.

mrmitchell, an individual is free to his right to have sex. Just so long as the other individual remains free to his right to choose to have sex too, or not.

Well, or almost. There is something called "age of consent" for sex, a concept I suppose you agree with. I wonder why children, who are sooooo influencable when it comes to sex, can prpoduce an informed choice when it comes to indoctrination.

[Kuciwalker]

So it is illegal to try and convince children of things?