Chirac hopes his tough stand to maintain the official division between the church and state will help boost his sliding popularity and prevent the far-right National Front from cashing in on racial tensions at regional elections in March.
This is the kind of seperation of church and state bullshit that pisses me off. Seperation implies that neither has control over the other, but in a situation such as this, it is obvious that Chirac is pushing for control by the state. There is no reason to ban religious items worn by a person while in school, none at all.
And Ren’s argument about children’s voluntary segregation, they’ll still do it. Just because it is not immediately visible what religion you are doesn’t mean they won’t seperate by it. Hiding differences will not create a better sense of community or unity; if anything it will cause resentment.
Then again, France is a bit differnet from some other nations, even those around it. And certainly different than what Americans are used to.
I’ve heard from two missionaries to France who have said that the disapproval of religion is very strong; surprisingly so, to them at least. The people there may not have as strong a backlash as you or I would think or expect. I don’t know a whole lot besides what those two gentlemen told me, but it sounds like this is something that could go through with better chances than other places.
And as 984 pointed out, the future ramifications are scary.
It is indeed funny how “seperation of church and state” seems to imply that the state has all the say over both state AND church. Curious, that.
Actually, this is a great move for France. It’s going to bring them much closer to their foreign policy goal of pissing off every country in the world. After supporting the muslims in the middle-east for the last couple of years, they simply turn around and attempt to piss off the people they were previously defending. It’s things like these that just leave me stunned and wanting to punch France in the face screaming, “What the hell, France? Were you dropped on your retarded head as a baby? Get a goddamn clue already!”
What I think is the real motivation behind this is the series of episodes of religiously motivated violence that occurred in France (and some other European countries) somewhat recently. I recall there being a few incidents where some fundamentalist Muslims attacked Jews, for instance. This is probably an attempt to defuse that. I think it’s a wrong-headed attempt, and I think it will fail because the backlash will come from those same Muslims and Jews, for one thing, but that’s why I think it came about, and that’s why there may be a sizable number of people in favour of it right this moment.
Yeah, there’s a lot of anti-Semitism in Europe’s Muslim populations because of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. For those of you who don’t know, Europe has a sizable minority of Muslims from Pakistan and the Mideast who mostly live in poor neighborhoods and work manual labor jobs that white Europeans aren’t willing to work. They’re like the recently immigrated Hispanics over here.
Originally posted by Ren Once again: in schools only. You can still wear or wield your stuff on the streets, at home etc.
So the French aren’t losing all their religious freedom - just some of it. Children are required to go to school, and many have no alternative to a public school. This law would prevent them from following their religious beliefs. It’s usually not religious people who invoke separation of church and state, but in this situation, where many children must attend schools that disallow religious symbols, they easily could.
This sort of persecution, albeit light, resembles the persecution by the state that non-Christians in the West underwent centuries ago. I would hope that France has moved past that era. Targeting new groups for persecution is not a progressive policy.
Originally posted by Uriel Well, the thing is that it became law because SOMEONE didn’t like what was going on.
Laws enforce what is just, not what we don’t like. I HATE Nazism, but I sure as Hell am not going to say you can’t wear a swastika or be a Nazi. Yeah, extreme example, but it works.
The point is that it restricts their freedoms to practice their beliefs, which is an unjust thing to do.
You’re correct there, but the thing is, if it distracts, annoys, or offends anyone at the school, it is overstepping their rights. Also, School is not a place to have religion. It is a place of education. Sure, expressing yourself in one thing, but when it pertrudes over others’ rights is another.
You’re actually wrong there.
It’s not overstepping your rights if it’s part of your religion, or even if it annoys/offends/etc. anyone.
You are not forcing anyone to do anything, so it’s not ‘having religion.’ You really don’t know what you’re talking about, it seems.
I am very annoyed by almost every form of dress that people choose in my school, but that does not mean they’re overstepping their rights in any way, shape, or form. It’s called freedoms, and I personally don’t agree with what they’re trying to do.
Thats a load of bullshit. Speaking from experience there is nothing wrong with people expressing their religion. I went to a private catholic school and I’m not a catholic. Sure everyonce in a while the non stop Jesus loves and Mary loves you too gets annoying after a while but hey, I had no choice. What makes public schools ‘public’ is that everyone there has a different opinion about different things and they should be allowed to express themselves accordingly. The Government has no right to interfere with such things.
Originally posted by Uriel . . .the thing is, if it distracts, annoys, or offends anyone at the school, it is overstepping their rights.
Does that apply to people and their personalities too?
Uriel, you weren’t listening to a thing I said. This has nothing to do with freedom of expression. This is a requirement of our way of life. We can’t just say “Oh well, I guess we’ll wear it at home then.” If it’s outlawed, we leave. That’s the only choice.
I don’t think/know if France has any kind of “Seperation of Church and State” rule, but this violates it. It supports Secularism, Atheism, and/or the “non-religion religion” by stuffing all the other ones in a corner where they can’t be seen or allowed any breathing room.
It’s through cultural and religious diversity that progress is made, as it brings different ways to look upon things and new ideas.
The Fifth Republic has secularism strongly semented into its constitution, it pretty clearly states that religion belongs in the private sphere and should stay out of the public sphere and certainly anything connected to the state. Which is why this didn’t come as a suprise to me.
