The Fwench.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi 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.

And how are they meant to indoctrinate the future foot soldiers for the church, without faith and morals!

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Those without religion will not teach their children religion, because they believe the opposite.

Fair point.

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

Again, very open minded!

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi How would you enforce such a ban on parents teaching their children about religion? Good luck.

It could be done over time.

Enough banning and punishments would eradicate the practice.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by skywalker


If a person coerces someone else into conforming to a religion other than their own (coercion being in the David Floyd sense ) then they've ALREADY commited a crime; if they get the person to do it any other way, it's simply convincing.

Christian women visiting Saudi Arabia are coerced to wear the headscarf; according to your statement, they are victim of a crime for religious reasons. As a citizen of a democratic country, I am not prepared to accept that any woman living in my country be victim of the same crime, for the same reason.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Look at it this way - are the other people OBLIGATED to even socialize with this person? (No.) Thus, if they aren't obligated, any socialization will be on their terms (assuming the other person will agree).

When people throw rocks at you, are you agreeing? When your family constantly considers you like a sub-human, are you agreeing? (ask Blackwidow for once)
As for the love life, do you know how important it is for the emotional development of young girls? Do you imagine what it means, to be subjected to a superior male who treats you like a piece of meat?
And you say "it's their choice": well, because of the high geographic concentration of these problems, highschool students are forced to see always the same people in their part of town, in their highschool, and they have no reason (nor the money) to go to a radically other part of town. It's a bit like a village: you have no choice but to encounter always the same people who won't miss an opportunity to call you a slut, to treat you like dirt, on the grounds you're not wearing a headscarf, or on the grounds you had sex with your boyfriend (even maybe one of them) before marriage.

If you don't want to socialize on the other person's terms, and they don't have any problem not socializing with you, then you either have to give in or not socialize with them!

Oh yes, the "this people are weak, why don't they resist" crap. The day you are universally treated like dirt by your family, your school"mates" and your neighborhood alike, with very little to no comfort (at least you'll still have 'Poly), maybe you'll change your tune.

I'm disappointed that you are advocating women's suffering for the sake of a little principle, i.e small government. I'm saddened that you don't see anything wrong with this horrible chauvinism, that is responsible for breaking so many dreams, so much potential among women, to turn them into subservients. I'm saddened to see you think nothing should be done about it, because you believe that as long as harassment isn't performed by the State, it is absolutely OK.

Tell me, are you for or against sexual harassment laws? (even when not talking about their extremeist implementation?)

[yavoon]

obvious idealogical chasm.

individuality, bill of rights, resistance to tyranny of the majority

vs

integration, rule of democracy and social stability.

[CharlesBHoff]

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.

I disagree with you I read than letter in a Pakistian newpaper which state Christian and Jewish holiday are school holiday but muslim holiday are not school holiday
which show French public school arenot free of Religion.
In alot of French Public school than large christian cross is on display they should be remove to make than unreligious school.

I personality think the french are abunch of religious racist who want to discriminate against the Islam without appearing to do so.

[CharlesBHoff]

It seem one Deputy in the French National Assembly have more sense in other members. Alain Bocquet Communist Party Deputy who vote against the Law Said it would stigmatize citizem of immigrant orgin and set thing on fire rather than calm then down.". In other word it is than dumb ass law.

It seem one Germany state want to ban teacher from wearing headscraf. England has than very large muslim population than they donot try to enact just dumb ass law. First once in elem school we have than Muslim Woman teacher who taught for afew year. She was a very good teacher, it isnot what a teacher wear as religious sychol but they abilities to teach. I believe it than teacher have sex with than student she or he could be dismiss from teaching.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
It seem one Deputy in the French National Assembly have more sense in other members. Alain Bocquet Communist Party Deputy who vote against the Law Said it would stigmatize citizem of immigrant orgin and set thing on fire rather than calm then down.". In other word it is than dumb ass law.

All Americans should bow down to the French commie

[Az]

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.

Because moral beliefs (i.e. something is right or wrong, without the explaination to it) have a direct connection to everyday life. Metaphysical questions are better explained when they're older. For the same reason you don't explain young kids about sex. It doesn't (well at least shouldn't ) concern then at that point.

Actually, the best would be to have them participate in an open discussion, and not settle for the authoritarian indoctrination. I believe it's wrong, even in this age. My parents always reasoned with me as a child, and I think it made me a better person.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Christian women visiting Saudi Arabia are coerced to wear the headscarf; according to your statement, they are victim of a crime for religious reasons. As a citizen of a democratic country, I am not prepared to accept that any woman living in my country be victim of the same crime, for the same reason.

Religion has nothing to do with the coercion - coercion is forcing someone to do something. Thus, coercion can ONLY be achieved through physical force (using words to persuade someone is obviously not coercion, because then affecting someone else's actions AT ALL would be coercion). In Saudi Arabia, it is against the law (and the law is backed up by force, by definition), and thus it is coercion. If there are merely social repercussions, it is NOT coercion.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
When people throw rocks at you, are you agreeing? When your family constantly considers you like a sub-human, are you agreeing? (ask Blackwidow for once)

If the ANY child's family considers the child sub-human, the social services need to be brought in.

As for the love life, do you know how important it is for the emotional development of young girls? Do you imagine what it means, to be subjected to a superior male who treats you like a piece of meat?

If they don't want to be subject to a "superior male", they don't have to be! Is a person inherently entitled to a love life? (I don't mean are they free to have them, but rather is it a legal mandate that they do?) (No.)

And you say "it's their choice": well, because of the high geographic concentration of these problems, highschool students are forced to see always the same people in their part of town, in their highschool, and they have no reason (nor the money) to go to a radically other part of town. It's a bit like a village: you have no choice but to encounter always the same people who won't miss an opportunity to call you a slut, to treat you like dirt, on the grounds you're not wearing a headscarf, or on the grounds you had sex with your boyfriend (even maybe one of them) before marriage.

And how will this change... the problem here is NOT the expression in school, it is a severely intolerant society. Society cannot be changed by the government, unless you want to try totalitarian repression.

Oh yes, the "this people are weak, why don't they resist" crap. The day you are universally treated like dirt by your family, your school"mates" and your neighborhood alike, with very little to no comfort (at least you'll still have 'Poly), maybe you'll change your tune.

Again, the problem is society. If the government wants to solve problems of differences between people, the solution is NOT to simply remove those differences.

I'm disappointed that you are advocating women's suffering for the sake of a little principle, i.e small government. I'm saddened that you don't see anything wrong with this horrible chauvinism, that is responsible for breaking so many dreams, so much potential among women, to turn them into subservients. I'm saddened to see you think nothing should be done about it, because you believe that as long as harassment isn't performed by the State, it is absolutely OK.

It has nothing to do with small government. I see PLENTY of things wrong with this society - I detest it utterly. But, while I may not agree with what they have to say, I will argue to the death that they have the right to say it

Tell me, are you for or against sexual harassment laws? (even when not talking about their extremeist implementation?)

Depends on what qualifies as "sexual harassment"

I think it shouldn't be a seperate category - it should be treated just like any other form of harassment.

On a final note, I'd like to point out that the fact that some people may be "persecuted" for not doing something, does not mean that other people no longer have the right to do it.

[Akka]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
I disagree with you I read than letter in a Pakistian newpaper which state Christian and Jewish holiday are school holiday but muslim holiday are not school holiday which show French public school arenot free of Religion.

And of course, a Pakistani newspaper is just sooo unbiased when it comes to religion

Yes, our holidays are the christian ones. Not because we're religious, but simply because, until a recent date, we had about 100 % of christians in the country.
It's a cultural habit. At first, before separation between Church and State, the holidays were religious. After, it was just because we were used to it.

And in fact, there is no Jewish holidays in France. Tough luck. Better chose more wisely your sources next time.
[QUOTE]

In alot of French Public school than large christian cross is on display they should be remove to make than unreligious school.

There is no christian crosses in school since more than one century.

This shows that you just don't know anything about the subject, and you just spill your pre-formatted endoctrinated speech.

I personality think the french are abunch of religious racist who want to discriminate against the Islam without appearing to do so.

I personnally think you're an ignorant cretin without the slightest clue, and guess what, I've much more chances to be right than you.

[Kuciwalker]

Akka - CBH also believes aliens are controlling the US (I'm not joking). AFAIK only Ned ever bothers to argue with him (about anything). The rest of us just sit back and watch - it's good comedy.

[Akka]

Ah well. Guess it was useless to answer him, then.

Being away from here quite a while. Forgot who is to be taken seriously and who's not ^^

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Again, the problem is society. If the government wants to solve problems of differences between people, the solution is NOT to simply remove those differences.

Glad to see we finally agree. The problem is society (or rather, a marginalized part of our society), and the headscarf is but a mere symptom of the problem. That's why I think the law does solve nothing.

OTOH, I strongly advocate, for example, the destruction of our ghettoes and their replacement by human-scale housings scattered across the residential areas. Social mixity is very good, and that will give an opportunity to these girls to actually encounter people who won't treat them like dirt.
Useless to say, our right-wing government pretends to agree, but it cut the Housing budget by 7% this year - AFAIK, it's the budget that has suffered the most

Since this extreme chauvinism mostly belongs to the marginal parts of the society, I think the State should do an effort to insure a better integration, to simply give them an incentive to feel French.
Like, for example, actually enforcing anti-discrimination laws, having the public media treat them like any other Frenchmen, open more mediatic high-posts to coloured people (we have exactly ONE major Arabic journalist), etc. Maybe even acknowledge they have brought some things that do belong to the French culture (the French-ghetto rap scene, for example, used to be one of the most active in the world)

The State can have a huge role in motivating people to drop the horrible chauvinistic crap, or to prevent people from being charmed by religious zealots. Of course, the current law will not help it, as it will only stigmatize headscarved women, and continue creating the rift in our society we desperately need to heal.

[Kuciwalker]

I agree with you completely - but I don't think the state should force these people to abandon their beliefs, however wrong I think those beliefs are. Help the people who want to leave, leave, but don't suppress freedoms.