The Fwench.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
So it is illegal to try and convince children of things?

At the public school, yes. The public school is supposed to be devoid of political, religious or commercial advocacy. Besides, as I try to convince people on the streets to vote for the Communist Party, I am forbidden by the law to try convincing those younger than 16 (I'm for a lower age of consent in this regard, but I'd find it highly amoral to proselytize children).

Now, that's the principle, which dates back to the begginings of the Third Republic, and I think it is obsolete in many regards: I'd prefer an approach based on age, rather than based on the attendance of public school. Such as forbidding people outside of the family to proselytize their system of values and beliefs on a very young and influencable kid.

To me, banning headscarves in senior highschool is preposterous wrt proselytism. At this point, kids are supposed to be mature enough not to get swayed by this.

[Kuciwalker]

At the public school, yes.

What is school, other than convincing a child (or "indoctrinating" one) into certain truths decided upon by the state?

The public school is supposed to be devoid of political, religious or commercial advocacy.

Circular logic. It is supposed to be this way because it is supposed to be this way.

Besides, as I try to convince people on the streets to vote for the Communist Party, I am forbidden by the law to try convincing those younger than 16 (I'm for a lower age of consent in this regard, but I'd find it highly amoral to proselytize children).

(btw, "amoral" means that it is unrelated to morality, or indifferent to it - "immoral" means morally wrong )

[Kuciwalker]

Now, that's the principle, which dates back to the begginings of the Third Republic, and I think it is obsolete in many regards: I'd prefer an approach based on age, rather than based on the attendance of public school. Such as forbidding people outside of the family to proselytize their system of values and beliefs on a very young and influencable kid.

How is that kid supposed to learn values? SOMEONE has to teach values to the kid. Why not expose children to many beliefs, and let them CHOOSE?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker

Besides, as I try to convince people on the streets to vote for the Communist Party, I am forbidden by the law to try convincing those younger than 16 (I'm for a lower age of consent in this regard, but I'd find it highly amoral to proselytize children).

"Remember kids! These nice treats are the gift of the communist party! The communist party is your friend! It's better than Santa, because it's true! "

[Kuciwalker]

If the kids hear that, fine. They can also hear lots of OTHER opinions.

The fact is, it is impossible by definition to avoid "indoctrination" of children - they have to be taught SOMETHING. Thus, they should be exposed to as much as possible, rather than fed state propoganda.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
How is that kid supposed to learn values?

From his family

SOMEONE has to teach values to the kid. Why not expose children to many beliefs, and let them CHOOSE?

You believe very young children can make an informed choice. I don't. And remember, I'm not speaking about highschoolers here, I'm speaking about 4-7 year olds.

[Kuciwalker]

From his family

So only his family can indoctrinate him, by law?!

You believe very young children can make an informed choice. I don't. And remember, I'm not speaking about highschoolers here, I'm speaking about 4-7 year olds.

Parents can keep their children from being in such a situation, if they want to. How many 3rd graders proselytise anyways

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Parents can keep their children from being in such a situation, if they want to. How many 3rd graders proselytise anyways

Third graders can transmit their values to their fellows, which happens when they have a very strong value system in comparison to the other pupils. for example, a person raised in a diehard racist family will feel confident to brag about it toward children who haven't recived strong anti-racist values. Same with religious values: a pupil coming from a diehard religionist family will try to impose this 'truth' on other kids except diehard atheist ones.

But the main stake is about adults trying to proselytize children, without the kid's interest in mind. I have a strong hatred for child-advertisement, for example, but religious or political indoctrination can be a scary thing when it runs rampant. At school, i.e at the place where we have control, we try to avoid it.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by problem_child

Furthermore I think it's pretty rich for muslims to demand the right of people to wear what they will in a libertarian secular society, when non-islamic women travelling in the muslim world can find themselves harrased or even beaten for not observing the customs of a religion to which they do not even belong.

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

[Saras]

It would be cool if headscarves became the hot teen apparel item in France.

[Akka]

Originally posted by skywalker
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.

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".

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".

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...

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.

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

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Saras
It would be cool if headscarves became the hot teen apparel item in France.

I expect it to be next september

[curtsibling]

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

I like that comment!

Nice one!

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Spiffor

"Remember kids! These nice treats are the gift of the communist party! The communist party is your friend! It's better than Santa, because it's true! "

"And if you step out of line, our kommissars will throw you in a furnace!"

[Drake Tungsten]

But then they made up for some of that unpleasantness in my book by flicking Bush the one fingered salute over Iraq, and their motivations for doing so were entirely altruistic, anti-imperialistic and good.

*gasping breaths*