The Fwench.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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 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!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kids shouldn't be educated ANY religious beliefs at all. Noone should talk to them about god, at all, until they're grown up, and can make those decisions themselves.

By that logic, kids shouldn't be educated any moral beliefs at all, until they are grown up and can make those decisions by themselves.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Akka

The point is not to ban religion, the point is to keep religious opinions out of school.

Is this a concept that nobody can understand ?

removing the free flow of information is a concept we are accustomed to.

we are generally against it.

so unfortunately tho u'd like that "no1 understood u." they actually do understand and merely disagree.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Why don't the French just ban religion? It would be fairly clear where they stand then.

As it is, they're just banning religious children.

The point is not to ban religion, the point is to keep religious opinions out of school.

Is this a concept that nobody can understand ?

[Cruddy]

Why don't the French just ban religion? It would be fairly clear where they stand then.

As it is, they're just banning religious children.

[Ben Kenobi]

Noone should talk to them about god, at all, until they're grown up, and can make those decisions themselves.

Why?

Religious people will disagree because they believe faith is an important part of morals, and that to really teach their child how to live a moral life, requires knowledge of religion.

Those without religion will not teach their children religion, because they believe the opposite.

Why not let each parent exercise their right to teach their children how to live a moral life, as they see fit?

How would you enforce such a ban on parents teaching their children about religion? Good luck.

[Az]

Kids shouldn't be educated ANY religious beliefs at all. Noone should talk to them about god, at all, until they're grown up, and can make those decisions themselves.

[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?