Religion has its rights.

[Heresson]

Ah, I didn't notice Your reply.
Well, in some way You are right, but I'd rather the state fighted people's ignorance in the subject not the reality deformed in their minds as if it looked as it looks in their eyes
(eh, it is unclear I guess,

[Whaleboy]

That submission was occuring because of the headscarf?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
...to the necessary degree required to even consider taking action against it?

I don't see how it can come under anything other than freedom of expression, and thus I wholeheartedly support efforts to make France reverse this ruling.

If wearing a scarf is required by Islamic doctrines, it is not freedom of expression.

Besides, freedom of expression is not absolute. For example, Nazi symbols and hate speeches.

[Drogue]

UR

[Whaleboy]

If wearing a scarf is required by Islamic doctrines, it is not freedom of expression.

Besides, freedom of expression is not absolute. For example, Nazi symbols and hate speeches.

You choose to follow a faith though, you are ultimately responsible for the decision. Expression of what? It needn't be expression of autonomy or individuality because they are loaded terms, might be collectivity or tradition instead, to which terms expression is objective.

Would you say that if I decided to wear a Kippur, it would not be freedom of expression, instead religious "indoctrination" or a command of Judaism? Would you say that even if I was responsible for the choice to be Jewish and follow that faith?

Of course freedom of expression isn't absolute, but nowhere did I claim it was. I believe it is most consistent in a society however and gives the most respect by statute to religious customs, but primarily the individual, if we assume that the individual has free will at the given moment (think more along the lines of Sartre's subjectivism, determinism still holds in the more objective context).

[Drogue]

Equally, the government forcing them not to wear the headscarf is freedom of expression, as they have chosen to live in that nation. If their religion says they must wear a scarf, and they choose to follow that religion, making it freedom of expression, then surely the same applies to states. They choose to live there, therefore they choose to abide by secular laws, making not wearing it also freedom of expression.

[Whaleboy]

Equally, the government forcing them not to wear the headscarf is freedom of expression, as they have chosen to live in that nation.

True (considering that their actions have consequences, and such a contract would be consequential accordingly). However, if the society seeks to not diminish the freedom of its citizens, as the French are claiming to be doing, then in the context of that society, that is precisely what they are doing. I also question the reasoning behind what they are doing too, never mind the violation of freedom, are the consequences wise or considered? What are their motives? Those aren't rhetorical questions.

However, one other flaw.... In a state, the laws pertain consequences, in a religion, there are no such consequences (one assumes the religion acts within the bounds of the law, which in this case it does). It's an association of individuals effectively, with rules that they choose to abide by or not. Once you are within the society, as far as society (note the individual always acts for their own egoisms) is concerned there is no such choice, and they have the means to make it so. There is a necessary contextual difference between the two therefore, that, for the point of view of that society, means that it cannot use that logic to justify such rules in the same manner.

I must ask however, what reason is there to ban headscarfs in schools?

(Drogue can you get online?)

[Drogue]

I accept your points. However once the law is changed, the religious law will not be within the bounds of the law. And I'm at work, thus no MSN - currently on hold (they keep head office on hold for this long? ). I'll be home about 5:30.

[Whaleboy]

I accept your points. However once the law is changed, the religious law will not be within the bounds of the law

Agreed. However I think that will reduce people's freedom of expression there with the incumbent arguments against that, also I think it is unwise by consequence, considering the slippery slopes it entails, not to mention the already hostile backlash. The alienation it has caused alone renders it nonsensicle in my opinion. I still don't know why they have done it!

[Drogue]

Spiffor gave a great explanation when it was annouced. France's situation requires some form of action, I believe there were reports of religous related violence in schools, bullying and the like, and while it may not be exactly right what they've done, it may combat some of the problem. Like having uniforms, it stops bullying based on clothes, the same is true for religious apparel.

[Whaleboy]

Hmmm my instincts would make me attempt to change the causes of the bullying, instead of ducking behind the parapet, I'd try to stop the war, so to speak.

Another good solution would be the reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools. I don't know if that's been outlawed in France but it's a step in the right direction here. Too much freedom with no responsibility .

[Drogue]

So we can't lose soem freedom of expression, but we can lose freedom of movement through pain? I agree with fighting the causes, but that takes time. You must do that while using temporary measures to stop the crime quicker. Waiting for years so that education teaches tolerance and stops this problem somewhat won't help the people being bullied now.

Too much freedom with no responsibility

So reduce the freedom

[Whaleboy]

So we can't lose soem freedom of expression, but we can lose freedom of movement through pain?

As children, our ability to express ourselves in such a manner develops largely independent of linguistics, at about the age of three along with the theory of mind, with the exception of autistics/aspergics whose development is impaired and delayed. Our ability to associate, and develop responsibility for our actions and associations (its easier to recognise consequences of communication after all, elements of that are hard-wired from birth) develops later, in my opinion earlier in those who are spanked. Note how I am defining spankable behaviour.

Waiting for years so that education teaches tolerance and stops this problem somewhat won't help the people being bullied now.

Making the many suffer for the benefit of the few? That makes somewhat less sense than making a few suffer for the benefit of the many! . If people are being bullied, laws cannot help... its a psychological and sociological phenomenon that in my experience needs to be tackled on a case-by-case basis. Simply creating a blanket law to spare the effort won't work.

So reduce the freedom

The benefits of freedom (never mind the Mill Limit ) warrent the increase of responsibility, thus corporal punishment to bring about that responsibility sooner and more fully. Reducing freedom to solve such a problem is a) inconsistent, b) overkill, c) unwise conseqeuntially and d) introduces numerous harmful slippery slopes. An example of my favourite logical empass... reductio ad absurdium!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
As children, our ability to express ourselves in such a manner develops largely independent of linguistics, at about the age of three along with the theory of mind, with the exception of autistics/aspergics whose development is impaired and delayed. Our ability to associate, and develop responsibility for our actions and associations (its easier to recognise consequences of communication after all, elements of that are hard-wired from birth) develops later, in my opinion earlier in those who are spanked. Note how I am defining spankable behaviour.

So children aren't subject to the same freedoms? Surely that applies for this too? Spanking isn't the only punishment.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Making the many suffer for the benefit of the few? That makes somewhat less sense than making a few suffer for the benefit of the many! . If people are being bullied, laws cannot help... its a psychological and sociological phenomenon that in my experience needs to be tackled on a case-by-case basis. Simply creating a blanket law to spare the effort won't work.

If people are being bullied, and laws reuce that bullying, laws *have* helped. Whether it helps the many or the few is irrelevant, you asked for a reason for the French governments actions. Stopping bullying is one. Whether you think it's worth it or not, they do.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
The benefits of freedom (never mind the Mill Limit ) warrent the increase of responsibility, thus corporal punishment to bring about that responsibility sooner and more fully.

Surely responsibility would come about through the natural consequences of a childs actions, not some consequence imposed by someone with a stick. What should you teach? Should I be able to hit you when I think you do something stupid? Should your mother? or should you lean yourself when you do soemthing stupid that it has consequences.

[Whaleboy]

So children aren't subject to the same freedoms? Surely that applies for this too? Spanking isn't the only punishment.

Yes and no. Children have the same freedom of expression but not the same freedom of association. For example, I would treat the views of my youngest brother as his own and he is perfectly free to express them in my view. However, he is not free disobey myself or his parents if, for example, we ask that he go upstairs to bed, whereas I do have that freedom.

Children are not subject to the same freedoms as an adult, because though they have the same free will as any sentient being, they cannot assume responsibility for it, so parents, carers, teachers etc, take that responsibility upon themselves.

If people are being bullied, and laws reuce that bullying, laws *have* helped. Whether it helps the many or the few is irrelevant, you asked for a reason for the French governments actions. Stopping bullying is one. Whether you think it's worth it or not, they do.

True. Again reality and the human race sucks . Still thats no reason to stop questioning it.

Surely responsibility would come about through the natural consequences of a childs actions, not some consequence imposed by someone with a stick. What should you teach? Should I be able to hit you when I think you do something stupid? Should your mother? or should you lean yourself when you do soemthing stupid that it has consequences.

If the consequences aren't easily foreseen by a child, how are they to know they exist? In stark terms, that needs to be demonstrated, but not so that spanking becomes negative reinforcement or worse, hence it should remain illegal in the home, only permissible in school where teachers should be trained in its use.

If I am a child and I do something wrong, I think that if you are my teacher then if the incident fulfills certain criteria, then the cane should be used. However, let's not threadjack, if you want a thread on corporal punishment, feel free to start one.