Religion has its rights.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Certain principles cannot be proven emprically, such as liberty, even equality is a philosophical concept without any physical attributes.

So I really don't see empirical means entering into the question, until people start asking whether one action or another can be shown to increase liberty.

Even then, since there isn't really a way to measure liberty, empirically, you are still in the realm of philosophy.

It is possibly to roughly measure many societal phenomenons, with social science. Sure, the measure is crude in comparison with a very complex reality, since concepts such as "liberty" get reduced to mathematically useable indicators (such as "# of encounters with the police last month", "# of times the subject felt being oppressed last month" etc.

As imperfect as it is, it is still possible to evaluate the impact of a policy on the real world. It is impossible to evaluate the impact of a policy in terms of "does it make God happy ?", unless you agree with the basic and unprovable premises that there is a God, and that his demands are known to us.

And you would be just as wrong to establish a polytheist religion over a monotheist. The same problems arise from both.

That I can believe. I merely expect the problems not to come as strongly from a polytheistic religion . But in my book, a complete separation of Church and State is the way to go.

For a religion to become a state religion alters both the state and the religion. Christianity is no exception.

And do you wish to see your religion become tainted again by petty politics?

That's a dumb law. We are permitted to protest in areas where there are young people provided we do not target them.

I am permitted to protest near highschools, as long as I don't deliberately target students of less than 16 with my message. However, it is strictly forbidden for me to preach within the school, no matter the age. Same for protests - btw, this is probably one of the reasons there are so few student strikes in highschool.

What principle do children violate when wearing headscarves in school?

AFAIK, the principle they "violate" (they actually only violate it in the minds of zealots who uphiold the letter rather than the spirit of the law) doesn't belong to the constitution. It is however a principle that has an extremely strong cultural value to us: School is to be "laïc". Religion-free.

This principle was said at the beginning of the third Republic, in the late 1870's, back when the fledgling Republic used the new Public Schools to promote the French nationality in a country that was an accumulation of various languages and traditions, and where the powerful Catholic church adamantly opposed the Republic. It has guided our public education system ever since.

Secondly, why is the state permitted to influence those under the age of 16, but others cannot?

Others can, provided the parents agree. Unsolicited propaganda is banned, but solicited propaganda isn't. Many parents put their children at Sunday's School. Many parents speak about politics to their kids (I must admit, however, that no parent ever granted me to directly talk politics with their kids). Until 16, it is considered that Children must be shielded from manipulation, and the parents are the obvious shield-bearers.

Why do you erect bubble zones around your schools? That to me seems detrimental to their education, that the only influence that can be provided comes from the state.

We erect bubble-zones (we even speak about "Sanctum School") because of the belief that, by doing so, the children's education will be free of interference that will slow it, and that will hurt the integration within French society the Children can derive from School.

Also, are there viable private schools in France?

About 17% of our ~12 million students are in private schools. The huge majority (more than 90%) of them is catholic. Some are Jewish. A fringe is evangelical. And recently, the two first Muslim private schools opened their doors.
Most private Schools get subsidized, as they teach the same contents, with the same methods than in public schools. However, religious education is allowed in private schools (without subsidies), and the headscarf-ban doesn't apply there.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
Aren't You aware that by comparing God to a Pink Unicorn You offend several bilions of people?

Wow, I didn't know there were so many people viewing 'Poly. That sure explains the lags

Similarily, I may not recognise with a state that approves death penalty, abortion, war in Iraq, whatever.

Yep, but you can change it (provided the State in question is a democracy - if it is not, it has more important problems than the separation of Church and State). In a State having an endorsed religion, you cannot democratically change something in a way that radically hurts said religion.

Well, French blackmail-like fight against mentioning of Christian roots of European cultur, which is a fact, and willingness to accept mentionings of ancient roots, shows, that France has an obsession of "religious neutrality"

We do. What does it have to do with atheism already?

The state controls the schools, and the state does not mention religion - ergo it proseiltises atheism

The school does mention religions. Actually, religion is taught in history classes during junior highschool. Any junior-high student that paid attention in class knows basics about Christianty (especially our many Christian holidays), about Judaism, and about Islam. Hinduism and Protestantism are also supposed to be mentioned, albeit faster.

Our schools mention religions much more than they mention the country of Palau. Does it mean the State proselytises the inexistence of Palau?

[General Ludd]

Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because religion -at least the monotheistic ones- is inherently intolerant and unprovable.

So are states.

[Sava]

religion is stupid, throw rocks at it

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by General Ludd
So are states.

States are unprovable?

[General Ludd]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Spiffor

States are unprovable?

Yes, they're abstract constructs. They have no more meaning than what we give them, same as religon.

[Agathon]

It's not a philosophical distinction, but a practical one.

Even the way that Rawls derives religious liberty from in his theory of justice is based upon what we think is practically feasible.

Since in Rawls' original position we don't know which religion we will have, if any, but that there will be a plurality of religions, it is reasonable not to allow the state to interfere in ones personal religious practice, for which the corollary (by the universalizability of Rawls' principle) is that the same goes for the laws which apply to other religions.

It's based on a personal judgement of what conditions you would tolerate living under, and universalizing them for others in similar situations.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Heresson
People complain about religions that want to decapitate or just punish their apostates - doesn't state also kill or punish its traitors?

Simple. Countries are different from religions. Any other question?

Originally posted by Heresson
People think that it's not right to force your religious moral values into legal system.

That's Separation of Church and State. It is the flip side of freedom of religion. It just says politics don't go messing around with religions, but religions also leave politics alone.

Originally posted by Heresson
But people do force their moral values into legal system - that's democracy.

That's not. You rarely find any modern legal systems based on any sort of moral systems. In fact, most countries are getting away from these laws.

Originally posted by Heresson
People complain if You convert someone by force - but if a state conquers a region, doesn't it force its citizenship over its members, forces them out, kills or enslaves?

Have you noticed these things aren't allowed anymore?

Originally posted by Heresson
People complain that clercks and fanatics want to forbid telling that or telling that - a state has its secrets too and wants to defend them.

A state operates for its citizens - at least in theory - a religion doesn't. It operates for itself.

Originally posted by Heresson
There are laws against offending high officials of the state...

What do you mean? Surely you can criticise them.

Originally posted by Heresson
Such thing does not exist. Lack of any religious background = atheism, as we see on french example

Atheism is not a religion, just FYI.

[Ramo]

People complain about religions that want to decapitate or just punish their apostates - doesn't state also kill or punish its traitors?

Religions and states both blow.

[SnowFire]

Spiffor: I seem to recall that you can research Ceremonial Burial & Mysticism pretty early in the game, but Monotheism/Religion is for later after your civilization wants to become more tolerant for its unhappy members, and needs to placate 4 of them at a time. Clearly monotheists are MORE tolerant than polytheists.

On a more serious note, there's the difference between the worshipper in the street who cheerfully accepts what his religious leader tells him, what his friends of other religions tell him, good luck charms, horoscopes, whatever on one extreme, and the theologians in the university. I think you'll find that Muslims in the street in the India of old were quite tolerant (less so now, of course, with better communication and the lack of a common enemy like the British to unite the Hindus & Muslims), but the more removed you get from that, you end up with things like the Catholic theologians who invalidated some girls communion since it was done with rice wafers, and you have to use wheat. I have no doubt that the Romans had some priest somewhere who detailed an exact list of the gods and proper ways to worship them, and anybody who messed up the sacrifices or claimed they had a new god was committing heresy.

[LDiCesare]

Certain principles cannot be proven emprically, such as liberty, even equality is a philosophical concept without any physical attributes.

These philosophical concepts have been adopted by revolting against their opposite (aristocracy+slavery). Empirically, you will find that people tend to resent being restricted rights, so it's quite hard to take them away.

Secondly, why is the state permitted to influence those under the age of 16, but others cannot?

Parents can. And not just the state, but the state gives a basic education to everyone, and protects children from those outside their family.

Also, are there viable private schools in France?

Yes, a lot of them, almost all of them being Christian. This means they usually have catechism courses, but these cannot be mandatory.

Aren't You aware that by comparing God to a Pink Unicorn You offend several bilions of people?

Why? The GReat Bull was considered a god by millions, so comparing God to a Great Bull makes sense. He's just going one step further. Since you probably see as much divinity in the great bull and a pink unicorn, what's your point?

Tell that to Christians massacred through history by pagan Romans and barbarians, or to Muslims and Christians in India who are persecuted by Hindu majority

Tell that to Roman pagans, Incas, Aztecs, native americans that were burnt to yhe stake by Christians. Romans tolerated polytheists and monotheists (jews for example). They didn't tolerate a religion that explicitly said their state religion was false.

The state controls the schools, and the state does not mention religion - ergo it proseiltises atheism

Let me see the reasoning: You haven't been talking about baseball, therefore you are actively discriminating against baseball. Got it right?

Not separating church from state leads to problems when the heads of church and state enter a conflict. So unless you go the anglican way (the King is the head of church), you'll end up having problems. You can read Voltaire (a christian theist) to see how useful clergy can be.

[Ben Kenobi]

These philosophical concepts have been adopted by revolting against their opposite (aristocracy+slavery). Empirically, you will find that people tend to resent being restricted rights, so it's quite hard to take them away.

However, one man cannot be allowed unfettered freedom in a society. For the rights to one end where another's begin.

So it is not enough to say that all restrictions should be lifted, or even that the restrictions that some people find chafing ought to be lifted.

There are very good reasons as to why they are needed in a civilised society.

Secondly, when you say that 'empirically' people tend to resent restricted rights, you must first have some method of gaging this resentment, or to gage the extent to which liberties have been curtailed. This cannot be done.

This is why I say that liberty is not based on empirical proof, but rather, on social conventions.

Parents can. And not just the state, but the state gives a basic education to everyone, and protects children from those outside their family.

So if parents and teachers are permitted influence, why not clergy?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So if parents and teachers are permitted influence, why not clergy?

Did you read?
Clergy can influence children. If parents want it.

[Heresson]

Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Simple. Countries are different from religions. Any other question?

The question is, why should they be different?

That's Separation of Church and State. It is the flip side of freedom of religion. It just says politics don't go messing around with religions, but religions also leave politics alone.

TThe wyestion is if separation of church and state is right. and if it is possible without falling into state atheism

That's not. You rarely find any modern legal systems based on any sort of moral systems. In fact, most countries are getting away from these laws.

ekhem, LAW IS A MORAL SYSTEM

Have you noticed these things aren't allowed anymore?

So... what is legal then to do with the citizens of conquered territory?
Say, if Corsica would become independant, wouldn't it demand loyalty of its citizens?

A state operates for its citizens - at least in theory - a religion doesn't. It operates for itself.

You are wrong. Religion is most often a way of getting divine help. Auspicia - to predict the future. Sacrifices - to make Gods pleased so that they wouldn't interfere or would help. Also, in religion such as Christianity, it is also about helping other people

Atheism is not a religion, just FYI.

Atheism is a religion, just very different than any else

Tell that to Roman pagans, Incas, Aztecs, native americans that were burnt to yhe stake by Christians.

In antiquity, no-one forced nobody to convert. Even after Theodosius. Even Libanius admits that; just pagan cult was prohibited.
I'm not sure about Aztecs, but I think religion had little to do with the way they were treaten

Romans tolerated polytheists and monotheists (jews for example). They didn't tolerate a religion that explicitly said their state religion was false.

Jews claimed that too, and they weren's mistreaten - because their religion was ancient. Worshippers of Bacchus didn't claim Roman religion was wrong, and they were still slaughtered
Romans fought against cults that were still slaughtered
1 - allien to them
2 - new (without sanction of tradition)
That's why the worshippers of Bacchus, manicheans and christians were persecuted. In the latter cases it is also about that Christians didn't want to make sacrifices, thus endangering the empire with the wrath of gods.
Anyway, it is visible again how hostile to Christianity You are. I didn't say Christians were tolerant through history, You said polytheists were much more tolerant. I mentioned the cases to prove they were persecuting Christians too. Your post was unnecessary

Let me see the reasoning: You haven't been talking about baseball, therefore you are actively discriminating against baseball. Got it right?

Isn't comparing baseball to religion a bit rude? But the answer is yes, if You can't play baseball at school, can not wear baseball t-shirts or whatever

Yep, but you can change it (provided the State in question is a democracy - if it is not, it has more important problems than the separation of Church and State). In a State having an endorsed religion, you cannot democratically change something in a way that radically hurts said religion.

Whether it is bad or not, it's a different story.
You have a point, but You can always force through "other interpretation": christianity does not give detailed answers to everything.

We do. What does it have to do with atheism already?

Why is France so enraged on even justified and no-consequential mentioning of Christianity if it is not hostile to Christianity itself? You can't say it's about separating religion and state: it was supposed to give historical basis for European unity. Removing christianity out of it is as wise as removing it from school books - they are means in state educational system

The school does mention religions. Actually, religion is taught in history classes during junior highschool. Any junior-high student that paid attention in class knows basics about Christianty (especially our many Christian holidays), about Judaism, and about Islam. Hinduism and Protestantism are also supposed to be mentioned, albeit faster.

Yes, it's a great presence of religion indeed. A child learns that there are many religions, and probably all are the same good. A child learns about religion as it learns anatomy of a frog.

Our schools mention religions much more than they mention the country of Palau. Does it mean the State proselytises the inexistence of Palau?

Does a majority of population, or even a significant number of it, speak Palau or even know what Palau is?

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Heresson
Why is France so enraged on even justified and no-consequential mentioning of Christianity if it is not hostile to Christianity itself?

1. It is consequential. The mention of Christianty (not even religion, but Christianty) would mean the EU is a Christian club, and it would mean that potential Muslim members (such as Albania, Bosnia or Turkey) would be "something else". It would mean that Muslim and Jewish people are somehow less European than others.
2. It is not hostile to christianty, as we would have done just the same if any other religion was suggested. Stop being paranoid for your precious little religion. It is exactly the same as all the others, in that we don't want it interfere with politics.

You can't say it's about separating religion and state: it was supposed to give historical basis for European unity. Removing christianity out of it is as wise as removing it from school books

Except that the constitution is not a school book. The Preamble of the European Constitution is about the common values every EU member should cherish. Values of democracy, values of enlightenment.
Again, including Christianty into this, is the best way to insure non-Christian countries will stay out, or will be considered as "something else".

Yes, it's a great presence of religion indeed. A child learns that there are many religions, and probably all are the same good. A child learns about religion as it learns anatomy of a frog.

Precisely, this is the role of school. Religion does have a major influence on today's belief systems, and it is good to explain about them at school. If the kid (or rather his parents) want to teach the One Truth, there are Churches that do that. Heck, in my hometown, there's a Sunday School right in front of my highschool.

Does a majority of population, or even a significant number of it, speak Palau or even know what Palau is?

Nope. And?
By the same token, plenty of people in France know about Baseball. Does it mean we discriminate against Baseball by it not being in the curriculum?