The Fwench.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
This point is important in that it demonstrates that the headscarf is not a religious obligation, but a political one.

If you believe it is a religious obligation, then it IS one! Your religion is what you believe!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Akka
No, that is passivity.
A neutral zone considering a particular point, is a zone where this particular point is ABSENT. Well, that's the point. Absent.

And saying "keep your beliefs to yourselves while in neutral zone" is not suppressing nor segrating. It's just saying "keep it to yourselves while in this zone".

Yes, it IS suppression - you are suppressing the expression of that student. The STATE, and thus the SCHOOL, is neutral wrt religion. The STUDENTS are not, because they aren't part of the state, except in that they are citizens of it.

Well, if you don't see the problem with proselytism in school, then I suppose you just can't understand the point to have a neutral state. Guess the concept is lost to you, and then I can hardly make a point about it.

After all, if someone doesn't find any harm in propaganda, it's a bit hard to make him understand that unbiased news are good...

my point was that "proselytism" is EXACTLY THE SAME as "convincing", except that "proselytism" is used when you want to paint something as negative. Now, would you consider "convincing" another student of something as wrong

Funny, someone who blame government propaganda because a point that is precisely aimed at preventing propaganda
Guess you defeat your own argument here. Thanks.

The GOVERNMENT should not spread "propaganda" (or rather, any sort of beliefs) - a private party may try and convince someone of a specific set of beliefs all they want, DUH. I'm not trying to prevent propaganda, I'm trying to prevent GOVERNMENT propoganda.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cruddy
The French are fine by me.

Sure, we've had lots of rows in the 100 years of the Entente Cordiale... but doesn't democracy thrive on debate and different ideas?

That's the point

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
a private party may try and convince someone of a specific set of beliefs all they want, DUH.

Why should private parties be allowed to do something that is a strict no-no from the State?

[Fake Boris]

I'll shortly state my stance on it.

The consequences are likely to be benefic, but I fail to see how a government can justify banning religious symbols without impeding on basic rights.

Yeah, I know the ban is valid in school only; but since education is mandatory, it's not like the law isn't forcing it, in fact.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Why should private parties be allowed to do something that is a strict no-no from the State?

The state is not allowed to run churches, right? Thus, private parties ALSO can't run churches

People empower the state to do things, not the other way around.

[Spiffor]

Think of it the other way:

The State is supposed not to rape anybody. Yet, it protects people from being raped by private individuals.

Now, if you consider indoctrination to be an offense to your freedom (which I consider it is, at a very young age), why should the State not protect you from it as well?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Think of it the other way:

The State is supposed not to rape anybody. Yet, it protects people from being raped by private individuals.

Now, if you consider indoctrination to be an offense to your freedom (which I consider it is, at a very young age), why should the State not protect you from it as well?

I think most americans are arguing against the french gov't. and ur arguing against them whilst not supporting the french gov't.

its an orgy of a thread waiting to happen.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Think of it the other way:

The State is supposed not to rape anybody. Yet, it protects people from being raped by private individuals.

Now, if you consider indoctrination to be an offense to your freedom (which I consider it is, at a very young age), why should the State not protect you from it as well?

At a very young age, the legal guardian makes decisions for the child. Why should the state have a say?

[Spiffor]

Yavoon:

I oppose indoctrination of the very young people on moral grounds. I'd also oppose political or religious behaviour that would be disturbing to the education content of the schools (like I oppose any other disturbing behaviour).

However, the gov't isn't acting like that. It is defending laicity at school, a value which I think is worth defending, but it does it exactly the wrong way.

1. The concept of laicity at school was forged in a time of intense rivalry between the State and the Church. Such rivalry is gone now, but the way people think about laicity is still the same. Unlike 1880, we don't need to ban religious displays at school, simply because Religion is not anymore the enemy of the School's educative contents.

2. Many girls decide to wear the headscarf out of peer pressure (fearing to be treated as sluts if they don't do it), or out of identitarian concerns. This law adresses neither cause. We are not fighting against the rampant mysogynia that befell parts of our country, nor are we giving more reasons to daughters of the immigration to feel French.

3. This law is not exactly about preventing proselytism, as it is more a feelgood exercize of defending the old "laicity at school" dogma without even thinking at what it truly means.

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor - children have to be indoctrinated. It will happen anyways - how do you prevent people from acquiring any moral/religious beliefs (including atheism) for the first decade of their life? Why would you want to?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
At a very young age, the legal guardian makes decisions for the child. Why should the state have a say?

When the kid is at school (which is mandatory) and the guardian is at work, I think the owner of the school should make it so that the legal guardian doesn't take any risks. Don't you?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yavoon:

I oppose indoctrination of the very young people on moral grounds. I'd also oppose political or religious behaviour that would be disturbing to the education content of the schools (like I oppose any other disturbing behaviour).

However, the gov't isn't acting like that. It is defending laicity at school, a value which I think is worth defending, but it does it exactly the wrong way.

1. The concept of laicity at school was forged in a time of intense rivalry between the State and the Church. Such rivalry is gone now, but the way people think about laicity is still the same. Unlike 1880, we don't need to ban religious displays at school, simply because Religion is not anymore the enemy of the School's educative contents.

2. Many girls decide to wear the headscarf out of peer pressure (fearing to be treated as sluts if they don't do it), or out of identitarian concerns. This law adresses neither cause. We are not fighting against the rampant mysogynia that befell parts of our country, nor are we giving more reasons to daughters of the immigration to feel French.

3. This law is not exactly about preventing proselytism, as it is more a feelgood exercize of defending the old "laicity at school" dogma without even thinking at what it truly means.

all wondefully nice. but u still realize u and ur opponents are arguing past each other half the time.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Spiffor - children have to be indoctrinated. It will happen anyways - how do you prevent people from acquiring any moral/religious beliefs (including atheism) for the first decade of their life? Why would you want to?

I know children will be indoctrinated, and I think it is necessary to give a consistent behaviour later (such as "do not kill" and things like that).

But the difference between parents and third parties, is that parents are supposed to deeply care for the well being of the child. Third parties are much, much more likely not to look for the interest of the Child, but rather of their own interests (or more precisely: their organization's interests).
And even though teachers are supposed to look for the pupil's best interest, I still think they should avoid indoctrination as well: as persons of authority and knowledge, indoctrination is completely displaced from teachers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
2. Many girls decide to wear the headscarf out of peer pressure (fearing to be treated as sluts if they don't do it), or out of identitarian concerns. This law adresses neither cause. We are not fighting against the rampant mysogynia that befell parts of our country, nor are we giving more reasons to daughters of the immigration to feel French.

How is making a choice out of "peer pressure" any less of a choice?

In fact, the concept of "peer pressure" is ridiculous anyways. I'm not denying that people get "pressured" (i.e. convinced) into doing something, but how is that some sort of evil horrible thing? There is no qualitative difference between me convincing my friends that we should see "Episode 3: Lucas Finishes Selling his Soul" and a kid wearing certain clothes because he thinks he has to to be "cool".