The Fwench.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You obviously don't know the peer pressure I'm talking about.

Teenage girls, in the parts of our country where there are many alieneated children of the Arabic immigraction, tend to be treated like crap by boys. The values are very chauvinistic, and girls that do not wear a headscarf are considered as sluts, as sub-humans without dignity (for some reason, the same men find pride in them being oversexed, go figure)

Any girl wanting to be treated correctly has to put a headscarf, thus showing she accepts to be lesser than a man, that she sacrifices her freedom and her potential, in order to stop suffering from the asshols' harassment.

If you believe there is nothing wrong with that, and that we shouldn't look into putting a halt to this "peer pressure", then your priorities are really fecked up, I'm afraid.

Are you going to throw freedom of association down the toilet too? I know exactly what you mean by peer pressure, and repressing it is essentially punishing people who are "mean" it's like complaining that it's unfair if two people team up on you in Risk.

Btw, I happen to have experience with that sort of picking-on (though obviously to a lesser extent), and while at the time I felt it was a horrible injustice, looking back on it I realize that it is STUPID to allow yourself to be bothered by it - if you can't think for yourself, you have no sympathy in my book.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Akka
No, I'm enforcing the rules of neutrality toward religion.

The neutrality of the students

The students AREN'T neutral, and don't have to be. The students may be under the care of the state, but that doesn't mean it can throw their liberties in the trash can. The state is only justified in interfering with those liberties if they are interfering with the state's mission for the schools - to teach kids.

The students ARE part of it, because they are UNDER THE RESPONSABILITY OF THE STATE when they are at school.
Which is something I already pointed out, in case you have trouble to read.

The state is responsible (in school) for teaching the students. Part of this is keeping them safe, part of this is not allowing them to create a disruptive environment... but none of it is to crack down on the free flow of ideas.

Doh, and what is propaganda, then ?
Trying to convince the others with a different point of view on fact ?
The point is precisely that trying to endoctrinate others is something that is forbidden in school.

That's circular. It is forbidden in school, thus it should be forbidden in school.

I'm always amazed at the quantity of bullsh*t people try to hide under the "free speech" thing.

Such as... free speech, maybe? What part of "freedom of expression" don't you understand?

Endoctrinating people in an institution that have a policy of neutrality toward religious opinion is not free speech, it's breaking the rules.

indoctrinating people BY an institution that has a policy of neutrality towards religious opinion is not free speech, it's breaking the rules. That's why teachers cannot preach the Gospel to students during class (or even in their capacity as an employee of the state). The students are not representatives of the state (and by extension, the people), and thus those restrictions do not and should not apply to them.

l is for EVERYONE. Plenty of parents doesn't consider that they send their children to school to be endoctrinated by the witnesses of Jehova, or by the Church, or by the Koran, or whatever. They just wish their children to get education.
If parents wish their children to get a religious education, there is private schools. If they send them to a public school, they accept that there is other sensitivities, and so they agree to submit to the school's rules, which say : "no display of religious or political opinions".

They are opposed to their children being exposed to other ideas? In school? When we want them to grow up to be FREETHINKING adults? If the parents are concerned about their children being "indoctrinated" by someone other than them, maybe they should work harder to instill their values (indoctrinate) on their kid.

That's precisely the point.

That's precisely to AVOID government propaganda, to AVOID children being exposed to propaganda, that there is no religious or political opinion displays at school.
I already explained it, if you would just bother to read rather than spill your pre-formatted rant on poor religious folks being oppressed.

This isn't government propoganda! The state is prohibited from preaching religions to people, private entities are not. Avoiding children being exposed to propoganda (i.e. other viewpoints) is different from avoiding government propoganda.

]The State guarantee that the children going to public school won't receive indoctrination from anyone, be it religion, commercial companies, or political parties.

Why?

It's actually a GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM, for those whose brains are still able to work.

What freedom? You are restricting expression by the students.

And to guarantee this (as much as possible) unbiased education, personnal opinions about these subjects aren't to be displayed.

The education is provided by the school (and thus the state), not the other students (at least, I'd hope so - if not, your school system is REALLY bad).

The state have no say about it.
The state doesn't indoctrinate, it prevents indoctrination by forbidding the subject of indoctrination.

INDOCTRINATION ISN'T BAD! In the way you are using it, "indoctrination" is exposure to other viewpoints. The STATE cannot teach a religion, there is nothing wrong with private entities doing it. If a student doesn't want to listen to something, he or she doesn't have to (or at least can ignore it). Or are they afraid that they'll somehow be mind-controlled into believing what the other person is saying?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
u can see how that can easily be arguing past each other

Oh, OK, sorry, I misunderstood "arguing past". I thought you were surprised that I could defend somehting looking like the headscarf law.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
How is making a choice out of "peer pressure" any less of a choice?

You obviously don't know the peer pressure I'm talking about.

Teenage girls, in the parts of our country where there are many alieneated children of the Arabic immigraction, tend to be treated like crap by boys. The values are very chauvinistic, and girls that do not wear a headscarf are considered as sluts, as sub-humans without dignity (for some reason, the same men find pride in them being oversexed, go figure)

Any girl wanting to be treated correctly has to put a headscarf, thus showing she accepts to be lesser than a man, that she sacrifices her freedom and her potential, in order to stop suffering from the asshols' harassment.

If you believe there is nothing wrong with that, and that we shouldn't look into putting a halt to this "peer pressure", then your priorities are really fecked up, I'm afraid.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

So what?

There is one point with this law I agree with, it is the restriction of religious indoctrination to the youth. This is a point Skywalker and yourself (I suppose) oppose, so it's entirely normal that I chime in with others when defending this very point.

In other news: I oppose war in Iraq, and I have consistently argued against the pro-war people. that Chirac opposed the war based on selfish and realpolitical grounds wasn't supposed to hinder me for arguing against the war, was it?

I think u and skywalker are on same page now.

I just trying to help.

lotsa ppl were saying "school shouldn't ever shut down personal expression. u were saying "very young children shouldn't be indoctrinated."

u can see how that can easily be arguing past each other

[Spiffor]

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

So what?

There is one point with this law I agree with, it is the restriction of religious indoctrination to the youth. This is a point Skywalker and yourself (I suppose) oppose, so it's entirely normal that I chime in with others when defending this very point.

In other news: I oppose war in Iraq, and I have consistently argued against the pro-war people. that Chirac opposed the war based on selfish and realpolitical grounds wasn't supposed to hinder me for arguing against the war, was it?

[Akka]

Originally posted by skywalker
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.

No, I'm enforcing the rules of neutrality toward religion.

The students ARE part of it, because they are UNDER THE RESPONSABILITY OF THE STATE when they are at school.
Which is something I already pointed out, in case you have trouble to read.

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

Doh, and what is propaganda, then ?
Trying to convince the others with a different point of view on fact ?
The point is precisely that trying to endoctrinate others is something that is forbidden in school.

I'm always amazed at the quantity of bullsh*t people try to hide under the "free speech" thing.

Endoctrinating people in an institution that have a policy of neutrality toward religious opinion is not free speech, it's breaking the rules.

School is for EVERYONE. Plenty of parents doesn't consider that they send their children to school to be endoctrinated by the witnesses of Jehova, or by the Church, or by the Koran, or whatever. They just wish their children to get education.
If parents wish their children to get a religious education, there is private schools. If they send them to a public school, they accept that there is other sensitivities, and so they agree to submit to the school's rules, which say : "no display of religious or political opinions".

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.

That's precisely the point.

That's precisely to AVOID government propaganda, to AVOID children being exposed to propaganda, that there is no religious or political opinion displays at school.
I already explained it, if you would just bother to read rather than spill your pre-formatted rant on poor religious folks being oppressed.

The State guarantee that the children going to public school won't receive indoctrination from anyone, be it religion, commercial companies, or political parties.
It's actually a GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM, for those whose brains are still able to work.
And to guarantee this (as much as possible) unbiased education, personnal opinions about these subjects aren't to be displayed.

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

The state have no say about it.
The state doesn't indoctrinate, it prevents indoctrination by forbidding the subject of indoctrination.

Of course, when someone is dumb enough to mix "protecting from endoctrination" with "endoctrinating", what can you expect ?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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?

If the guardian doesn't want the kid to be exposed to other people's ideas, send the kid to a private school. If you can't, too bad, it's GOOD for kids to be exposed to different ideas.

[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".

[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.

[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
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?

[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]

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]

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?