Religion has its rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, so far, that's only Heresson and BK really. All the other posters in this thread seem to be either agnostics or atheists, unless I missed somebody.

Mostly just Heresson, since he's doing a fine job of it all by himself.

I find it funny that the atheists are complaining about a dogpile of one.

[Ben Kenobi]

And I missed your earlier reply, Spiffor.

Sorry.

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.

Social science has many problems when stacking up to the harder sciences on an empirical basis. And I include history among these. They really have two distinct levels of proof.

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.

Just as you say here that one can qualitatively analyse a social condition, so can you qualitatively answer the question of whether God exists.

Sure, you can't prove it like you would other scientific principles, but on the level of philosophy, it can be shown.

Secondly, regarding his demands, that is what Christians say, that they know what his demands are in the form of divine revelation. It's one thing to assert that God is unknowable, but quite another to say that you do know him, and have spoken to him.

Are you open to discussing the possibilities of divine revelation?

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

If getting my hands dirty in politics is what is needed to protect my religious freedoms, then by all means, I will get them dirty.

If the politicians did their job and protected religious freedoms so that we don't end up like France, then I wouldn't have to get my hands dirty.

It is a sad day when people abide to the loss of their rights passively.

this is probably one of the reasons there are so few student strikes in highschool.

We had them over issues like smoking in the school, where the smokers walk out one day, and the non-smokers the next.

Peace is no excuse to strip away expression.

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.

Which is a principle in your constitution, is it not?

Secondly, what gives you the authority to judge these people? How do you know that they follow the letter and not the spirit of their law?

Perhaps the Catholic church opposed the public schools in the past, but times change! What was once an essential component of keeping independence can hardly be said to be the same today.

Secondly, your constitution does not anticipate relations between non-Catholic faiths, such as the muslims. Should they not recieve their due consideration?

Until 16, it is considered that Children must be shielded from manipulation, and the parents are the obvious shield-bearers.

No, you have made the state the shield bearer, by barring religious expression in the schools. The parent seems to have little say in the public system as to what their child should be taught.

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.

So there we come across some very important points.

1. Religion of any sort hurts the integration of children into French society.

2. Teaching children religion slows their education.

These are both affirmations of atheism, if I ever heard any.

Now, don't you think these religious people in France will object to number 1? They are a part of society just as much as you are. I would have a problem with funding schools that taught what I believed to be detrimental to society.

What if the Catholics withheld their taxes from the state? I would if I were them.

Now, as for number 2, do you teach anything in public school written by someone who was religious? I ask this because he must be hopelessly backwards in having learned religion as compared to our most enlightened people today.
quote:

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.

So you have a segregated system, but rather than between blacks and whites, you have the spiritual, and the dead.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I find it funny that they atheists are complaining about a dogpile of one.

I find it funny that a complain made by Odin alone comes from "they atheists"

[Ben Kenobi]

find it funny that a complain made by Odin alone comes from "they atheists"

Sauce for the goose.

And it should be the atheists.

Darn typos.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, regarding his demands, that is what Christians say, that they know what his demands are in the form of divine revelation. It's one thing to assert that God is unknowable, but quite another to say that you do know him, and have spoken to him.

Let's say your country suddenly decides to make God happy, and to follow a religious agenda. There's a catch however: they have decided to make the Muslim God, Allah, happy, thanks to the compelling proof found in the Kuran.
I'm sure you'd be delighted being forced to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, to be barred from wearing T-shirts and shorts, in order to follow the national policy of pleasing Allah

We had them over issues like smoking in the school, where the smokers walk out one day, and the non-smokers the next.

Peace is no excuse to strip away expression.

Actually, I would like more highschool strikes.

Which is a principle in your constitution, is it not?

Nope. Our constitution is mostly about decision-making, and light on principles.
The only article that mentions laicity is the Article 1 of the preamble:
"La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances."
"France is an indivisible, laic, democratic and social Republic. She ensure that all citizens are equal before the law without distinction of origin, race or religion. She respects all beliefs".
Public schools being religion-free is not a constitutional principle. However, it has a probably stronger influence on the French people than any constitutional article would.

Secondly, what gives you the authority to judge these people? How do you know that they follow the letter and not the spirit of their law?

Since you are defending "these people", I would imagine there's a misunderstanding I oppose this law which I find contraproductive. The "zealots" am criticizing here aren't religious ones, for once. They are the zealots of the holier-than-thou principle, that school must be religion-free.
The principle of a laic school was direly needed back in the 1870's, when the Catholic Church used its role in education to continue mind-controlling the population. However, as time flew by, this useful principle turned into a dogma. Many people (the supporters of the headscarf ban) don't understand anymore what laicity at school could mean, and to them, it means schools must be closed to religions.
This is absurd.

Secondly, your constitution does not anticipate relations between non-Catholic faiths, such as the muslims. Should they not recieve their due consideration?

Again, our constitution has nothing to do with it. Our main problems with the integration of Muslims come from old conceptions about the French community, which are far older than our constitution.
And Muslims should recieve their due consideration. Fortunately, things are progressing in this regard, in that there are more and more decent mosques, and the Aid-El-Kebir is now organized in a much better way. In general, the Muslims can now worship in satisfying conditions in France, although there is still room for improvement.

No, you have made the state the shield bearer, by barring religious expression in the schools. The parent seems to have little say in the public system as to what their child should be taught.

The parents can vote. And there was actually a huge debate about School shortly before the headscarf scandal erupted, and the society gave serious feedback to the State about the educational system.

So there we come across some very important points.

1. Religion of any sort hurts the integration of children into French society.

Not religion per se. But the public display of religion does. In France, we strongly feel that religion is a private matter, that becomes social in the family and the Church, nowhere else.
Someone who shoves his religions to others is sure to get badly seen by French people, who hate it.

2. Teaching children religion slows their education.

Nope, if done outside of school, it's not a problem. However, when courses get delayed by endless and pointless debates similar to what we have in the OT (in general a classroom debate is like this: two opinionated students have a pointless argument with each other, while the rest of the class can't say one word), they do disturb the educational rythm. If people want to argue about religion and politics, there is another place to do that: anywhere else than in Public Schools.

Now, don't you think these religious people in France will object to number 1? They are a part of society just as much as you are. I would have a problem with funding schools that taught what I believed to be detrimental to society.

Your beliefs aren't detrimental to society. What is detrimental to society is when you (or your fellow religionists from any confession) shove it at other people. Especially at people who are manipulable like schoolchildren, and who have no choice but to go to the place where you want to proselytise.

What if the Catholics withheld their taxes from the state? I would if I were them.

Then the police would come, and take your furniture for the State to repay itself.

Now, as for number 2, do you teach anything in public school written by someone who was religious? I ask this because he must be hopelessly backwards in having learned religion as compared to our most enlightened people today.

We do teach some things religious people said, wrote, painted etc. We just don't teach the spiritual aspect of it, because such is the role of the Church, not of School.

So you have a segregated system, but rather than between blacks and whites, you have the spiritual, and the dead.

We have a segregated system that is terrible, as it is strongly racist, and significantly islamophobe (there are also traces of antisemitism in "mainstream" France, but most antisemitism can be found among the alienated Arab youth)

[Ben Kenobi]

to be barred from wearing T-shirts and shorts,

As opposed to being barred from wearing a cross?

I'll give up the T-shirts and shorts, if it meant I could wear a cross.

Public schools being religion-free is not a constitutional principle. However, it has a probably stronger influence on the French people than any constitutional article would.

Interesting. That goes contrary to what I have heard before. So it could be changed without altering the language of the constitution of France.

The "zealots" am criticizing here aren't religious ones, for once. They are the zealots of the holier-than-thou principle, that school must be religion-free.

Ah, merci. Habituellement quand un communiste français marque quelqu'un un fanatique, ceci ne s'applique pas les athées.

But the public display of religion does. In France, we strongly feel that religion is a private matter, that becomes social in the family and the Church, nowhere else.

What about the Christian who loves others? You are asking the impossible. For any believer his faith is a part of who he is, and to ask him to keep it in the closet will just make things worse.

two opinionated students have a pointless argument with each other, while the rest of the class can't say one word), they do disturb the educational rythm.

Debates can be moderated.

We do teach some things religious people said, wrote, painted etc. We just don't teach the spiritual aspect of it,

Do you try to cover up someone who is not a believer in the same matter?

Suppose someone were a communist, and you were studying his art. Wouldn't part of understanding the art come from knowing he was a communist?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As opposed to being barred from wearing a cross?

Are you aware that in France, you can wear any religious clothing in the whole territory of the country, but that of the public school? (provided it is compatibble with public decency laws,i.e. that your religious garb is not wandering stark naked)
I ask because from reading you, it looks like you believe it is forbidden to wear religious clothing everywhere on the territory, which is false.
In Iran, even if you're a tourist, you are required to have long sleeves and full trousers everywhere in public space.

Interesting. That goes contrary to what I have heard before. So it could be changed without altering the language of the constitution of France.

Yep. The laicity of the Republic is a constitutional principle, and the State won't endorse a religion in particular, nor even religion in general. The specific brand of laicity at school is unconstitutional.

Ah, merci. Habituellement quand un communiste français marque quelqu'un un fanatique, ceci ne s'applique pas les athées.

They're not necessarily atheists. Actually, quite a few are devoutly religious, like the Chirac family. They're "zealots" because they believe they stand up for a principle, when in fact they only apply a dogma without thinking about its meaning. You can be a "zealot" in non-spiritual matters you know

What about the Christian who loves others? You are asking the impossible. For any believer his faith is a part of who he is, and to ask him to keep it in the closet will just make things worse.

There is no religious closet. It is common for one to mention their religion or lack thereof in their discussions with people. However, we may consider it quite vulgar when somebody drums his religious affiliation and shows it to everybody else with clothing or with any form of obvious display.

Debates can be moderated.

I've never seen a highschool teacher (and very few university teachers, who 'moderate' debates all the time) do it successfully.

[q]Do you try to cover up someone who is not a believer in the same matter?

Suppose someone were a communist, and you were studying his art. Wouldn't part of understanding the art come from knowing he was a communist? [/QUOTE]
AFAIR my courses about Picasso, there was no mention of him being a Communist. We did study several of his paintings, learned the name of the different "periods" of his works etc though. Maybe his political engagement slipped at some point of the course, but I sure don't remember it.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, we may consider it quite vulgar when somebody drums his religious affiliation and shows it to everybody else with clothing or with any form of obvious display.

That's a shame.

I know a few people who are very open with their faith, so I guess I'm spoiled.

I've never seen a highschool teacher (and very few university teachers, who 'moderate' debates all the time) do it successfully.

That's a shame. It's not that difficult to do. They should have all the teachers serve on a debating team so that they can have a chance to do that.

I guess that I've been lucky enough to have some very good teachers that have managed to moderate debates in class so that everyone gets to participate.

I see your point with Picasso. But what do you make of folks that do religious paintings, or art with an obvious religious theme?

[Drogue]

Heresson: If Atheism is a religion, in terms of having a belief that there is no God, then it is not state sponsored. There is no indoctrination I'm aware of saying that God doesn't exist, which you claim is the sole principle. The seperate of church and state is about not having any religion, whether they believe in a God or not, involved in lawmaking. The French law against religious symbols in schools would also ban Atheist symbols, were there one.

To me, Atheism is not a religion, because it's not just a belief that there is no God, it's a lack of religion. I have no religion. I don't look at it as "I'm an Atheist, therefore I have no religion", I look at it from the other way - "I have no religion, and in having no religion, do not believe in any Gods, making me an Atheist". If I believed in a God, I would be religious, and since I do not agree with any religions, nor am religious myself, I do not believe in God. Therefore, my beliefs are that there is no religion, and I am classed as an Atheist because that involves a disbelief in God. Thus to me, Atheism cannot be a religion.

In your definition, is it possible to have no religion?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Drogue
Heresson: If Atheism is a religion, in terms of having a belief that there is no God, then it is not state sponsored. There is no indoctrination I'm aware of saying that God doesn't exist, which you claim is the sole principle. The seperate of church and state is about not having any religion, whether they believe in a God or not, involved in lawmaking. The French law against religious symbols in schools would also ban Atheist symbols, were there one.

The problem is that there aren't. And creating a place where we should hide our God into wardrobe can be treated either as not treating religion seriously or as a persecution of religion as a whole.
The scarf does not hurt anybody (unless it's the family that forces to wearing it), and if a girl thinks God will her to wear it, it is dumb and cruel to force her to take it off, especially if she wears it everywhere else and is not used to being seen half-naked, as she may understand it.
Additionally, a stress caused by such situation my be harmful to her school performance

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Heresson
The problem is that there aren't.

Why is that a problem.

After that said, do you know of the Darwin Fish?

[Heresson]

No

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Heresson
The problem is that there aren't.

That's not a problem, that's just because it isn't a religion. You choose to have symbols, we choose not to. if we'd chosen to have them,as we do in some senses, they would not be allowed in French schools.

Originally posted by Heresson
And creating a place where we should hide our God into wardrobe can be treated either as not treating religion seriously or as a persecution of religion as a whole.

Just as atheists should hide their atheism, in terms of symbols. Religion does not have a place in school, according to the French government. In response to your thread title, no, religion does not have rights. All rights are granted by man, and thus, if the country has decided that religion has no place in schools, religion does not have rights in schools. All rights are simply granted by man, whether about religion or not. So as far as natural rights, not only does religion not have any, neither to we.

Originally posted by Heresson
The scarf does not hurt anybody (unless it's the family that forces to wearing it), and if a girl thinks God will her to wear it, it is dumb and cruel to force her to take it off, especially if she wears it everywhere else and is not used to being seen half-naked, as she may understand it.

However it is up to the French government to decide French law. They decided to do this as they believe it is harmful for her to be wearing that. If they decided you have to wear a uniform, then you have to wear it.

[Whaleboy]

All rights are granted by man, and thus, if the country has decided that religion has no place in schools, religion does not have rights in schools. All rights are simply granted by man, whether about religion or not. So as far as natural rights, not only does religion not have any, neither to we.

Not strictly so. At the moment of an individual, they have free will, and so a state can choose to recognise that by implimenting the consequent right of freedom of expression and association. Note that this is still not a natural right, but a consequence of our free state, so I suppose I might term it a contextual or consequential right.

In effect, they have that right, but the state is denying it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not strictly so. At the moment of an individual, they have free will, and so a state can choose to recognise that by implimenting the consequent right of freedom of expression and association. Note that this is still not a natural right, but a consequence of our free state, so I suppose I might term it a contextual or consequential right.

In effect, they have that right, but the state is denying it.

So the state can choose to impliment it or not, but it is stil there? What, prey tell, is an unimplimented right? Freedom of expression is something granted by the government, whatever that government is.