I'm a liberal too, I still think that France is justified. I don't think they're right, but that's a different claim than to say that they're justfied. I don't even think that they're being especially pragmatic -- cultural protection rarely achieves the desired effect -- more often than not it ends up promoting that which it seeks to supress. Funny thing about BRussel agreeing with me, or mocking me -- I'm not sure, since there's a lot to mock here -- is that he might not understand exactly why he has... at least promoted me?
The problem with everyone here is that they cannot grasp that America is not France, except for Powerdoc, who does not fully grasp it either, but at least understands that he is French.
I'm a liberal too, I still think that France is justified. I don't think they're right, but that's a different claim than to say that they're justfied.
Justified? In what way? Morally? Legal?
My mothers family could wear their kippahs when and where they wanted. I want all others to have the same right. So for me its morally wrong even if its not against any law (and if it isn´t against the law then it should be changed so individual cultural rights are respected more)
he was not. What applies to others, never applied to him. He loved to **** with a virgin everyday in order to stay young. If anyone else did the same, he will be killed.
My mothers family could wear their kippahs when and where they wanted. I want all others to have the same right. So for me its morally wrong even if its not against any law (and if it isn´t against the law then it should be changed so individual cultural rights are respected more)
This law only applie to public school. In islamist or jewish school it do not applie.
This law have been made to protect the republic, from a growing extremist muslim movement, who want to promote muslim laws over the republican ones. The head scarves was one of the symbol of the movement. This movement is not limited to head scarves, he is also against any mix of the genders : thus women swim only with women, girls do not removed the head scarves in gymastic, thus they do not do sports ...
French school has always been a laic school without any references to god or a religion. Many girls are obliged by their family to wear a heardscarf : they have no choice (there is not any freedoom, when parents oblige a child to wear particular dress). Many muslims old school laws are directed against women, and are in contradiction with the republic culture wich should prevail in France.
The law is consistent ; it prohibit headscarf the kippah, and the cross. The exact wording is ' les signes religieux ostensibles sont prohibés dans l'école".
I find funny that people here cry "wolf" and are behind extrem muslim who dream to adapt the french laws to the muslims ones. The moderate muslims are for this laws.
I think many people here are too far away from France to get a clue. Strangely there is not such a big debate about this in France. Of course it will be good that anybody has the right to wear what they want, but i think it's more important to fight communitarism.
My personal point of vue is : that you can make cohabit different religions only if these religions belongs to private life, and that everypeople respect a common law and common value , the republicans values. If we start to adapt laws for a particular group of people, France will turn in a sort of liban
The problem with everyone here is that they cannot grasp that America is not France, except for Powerdoc, who does not fully grasp it either, but at least understands that he is French.
That's casting quite a wide net. Of course, the term 'everyone' includes you too.
This law only applie to public school. In islamist or jewish school it do not applie.
That really doesn´t make any difference besides:
1) Ensure more radical muslims are put in radical muslim schools
2) Give more rights for those who can afford to put their children in private schools
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
This law have been made to protect the republic, from a growing extremist muslim movement, who want to promote muslim laws over the republican ones. The head scarves was one of the symbol of the movement.
I doesn´t hope white shirts and black pants ever become the symbol of any radical religious group.
Shaved heads are the symbol of neonazis. Want to outlaw that too?
Fight ideas with dialog. Not people or symbols with laws.
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
French school has always been a laic school without any references to god or a religion.
The unity under the nation is comparable to the idea of unity under a religion.
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Many girls are obliged by their family to wear a heardscarf : they have no choice (there is not any freedoom, when parents oblige a child to wear particular dress).
And we agree that is wrong. And yet you still think the state should tell these persons what to wear. Is it better if the state force you to do something than if your parents do?
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Many muslims old school laws are directed against women, and are in contradiction with the republic culture wich should prevail in France.
1) Here you admit that its a fight between one set of ideas (republic culture) and another (religious culture). So the culture of the republic is importent enough to tell what people should wear on their head. Excatly what you say religion does.
2) Many people using head scarves aren´t doing it because of religion but because of culture. And most aren´t supressed victims of their parents or religion. Some are but not most. So with this law you hurt a lot of people to "help" a few (if you disregard extreme religious parent putting their children in private schools and the "republic protecting" aspect of this law).
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I find funny that people here cry "wolf" and are behind extrem muslim who dream to adapt the french laws to the muslims ones. The moderate muslims are for this laws.
I´m behind the individual in its fight against the state. We have a neonazi local radio here in the Copenhagen area. Am I behind neo nazism when I defend different opinions to be aired in the name of freedom of speech?
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I think many people here are too far away from France to get a clue. Strangely there is not such a big debate about this in France. Of course it will be good that anybody has the right to wear what they want, but i think it's more important to fight communitarism.
1) We have a very lively debate here because we are in a very comparable situation here in Denmark
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
If we start to adapt laws for a particular group of people, France will turn in a sort of liban
This is not about giving special treatment for certain groups but about not making laws against certain groups.
I have expressed my point of vue. You expressed yours. We disagree. That's ok.
You refered to a radio called Oasis. I did not make a thread about this at the time, because i am not interested to make a rant against denmark. but now that you bring this subject, i will just say that i was really surprised by this one : In the name of liberty, the Denmark governement used to give funds to these radio. In the name of liberty, they indirectly promoted a neo-nazi radio : the road to hell is full of good sentiments.
Arhhh. Come on. Its not fun if you don´t want to play
You are too nice. Perhaps thats a good qualification for being a mod in AO
I agree that i am not in the right mood to play. I spent hours trying to moderate debaters here since months, i have watched closely debates and contest between members. I am not interested by becoming one of these debaters.
I think it's time for me to take some good holidays. Luckily i will take then soon.
My mothers family could wear their kippahs when and where they wanted. I want all others to have the same right. So for me its morally wrong even if its not against any law (and if it isn´t against the law then it should be changed so individual cultural rights are respected more)
See, this is an example of not being able to think about the problem outside of yourself. Now, since I cannot write out my argument here, I must reduce myself to making jokes.
I fully believe that a person should be able to wear whatever they want, just not in France.
You refered to a radio called Oasis. I did not make a thread about this at the time, because i am not interested to make a rant against denmark. but now that you bring this subject, i will just say that i was really surprised by this one : In the name of liberty, the Denmark governement used to give funds to these radio. In the name of liberty, they indirectly promoted a neo-nazi radio : the road to hell is full of good sentiments.
We are giving funds to all kind of radio stations. All you need is a small group of people backing you and noone else competing for the air space. And as long as noone else will compete for their place it is my belief they have the right. We have a lot of socialist radio stations as well and as long as they follow our rigious antidiscrimination laws they should be considered a station at line with every other political station in the eyes of the bureaucracy.
I have listened to the oasis programs a couple of times and each time I have wanted to go down with a baseball bat and taught them a thing or two. but I have not taken the time to commit myself to forming a competing radio station which i´m sure would get the airwaves from oasis (the local government aren´t excatly happy with the radio station either)
See, this is an example of not being able to think about the problem outside of yourself. Now, since I cannot write out my argument here, I must reduce myself to making jokes.
I fully believe that a person should be able to wear whatever they want, just not in France.
What?
I hope I expressed that my stand is of very principle nature. Its not derived from the right of my family but from the liberal core: The individual over the mass, especially in cultural matters.
Please enlighten me a bit more: Is it a historic argument, since it only applies to France? And the word "Justified". Please tell in what way you use that word. What you have said untill now is just to cryptical.
We are giving funds to all kind of radio stations. All you need is a small group of people backing you and noone else competing for the air space. And as long as noone else will compete for their place it is my belief they have the right. We have a lot of socialist radio stations as well and as long as they follow our rigious antidiscrimination laws they should be considered a station at line with every other political station in the eyes of the bureaucracy.
I have listened to the oasis programs a couple of times and each time I have wanted to go down with a baseball bat and taught them a thing or two. but I have not taken the time to commit myself to forming a competing radio station which i´m sure would get the airwaves from oasis (the local government aren´t excatly happy with the radio station either)
I never doubted, that you are not the typical fan of radio Oasis.
I just finded weird that due to an uncontrolled radio funds policy, Oasis was getting money from the governement of Denmark. Luckily they fixed this problem now.
I never doubted, that you are not the typical fan of radio Oasis.
I just finded weird that due to an uncontrolled radio funds policy, Oasis was getting money from the governement of Denmark. Luckily they fixed this problem now.
Its more because of poor political involvement from ordinary people a neonazi stations can get funds. Its a great law because it 1) ensures not only freedom of expression but also means of expression and 2) its of principal nature so it isn´t giving the funds to certain political parties pet interests (arms length principle). Unfortunetly it also opens up for the possibility of funds going to the "wrong" people. Which of course everybody but the radio itself and their three listeners is sorry for.
Powerdoc has made some excellent points that help clarify the French landscape this bill is set against.
Sounds like there may be deeper cultural, social or political factors at play.
To bring this back on topic, let's consider other religious displays in schools...
Jain -
Not intending to be facetious, but I can't see schools accepting students who are
Naked, painted with ash, and perhaps with a disciple sweeping bugs from their path
Rastafarian -
Marijuana is considered a sacrament. Dreadlocks (uncut/washed hair) de riguer in some sects.
Should Bob Marley-ish students be banned?
(arguably, "drugs in schools" policies might override)
Sikh -
Turbans and official uniform clashed famously in Canadian History when a Sikh recruit took the RCMP to the Supreme Court over the Mounties requirements that the official Dress Uniform - Red Serge, Yellow Striped Pants, Sam Brown Boots, Belt, and Flat Brim Stetson Forage Hat - meant that all recruits required the hat - ergo no turbans. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the religious display, and various challenges have since failed.
There have also been challenges over turbans and the bicycle helmet law, though only in Provincial Supreme Courts.
Of greater significance in some Sikh orders is the Kirpan, or ceremonial dagger.
Strict observance of more fundamentalist Sikhism has ruffled public policy debates (knives, even unsharpened, in schools?) used to be ok, but recent school violence has reopened this debate.
Up until the security policy changes post 9-11, kirpans on airline flights were common, and spooky.
Teaching religious tolerance to students at a younger age might help alleviate school tensions (if the parents and religious leaders aren't teaching intolerance - which might be the real source of the problem), but not having them rub each others noses in ostentatious and potentially inflammatory symbols seems practical, if applied uniformly.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
I hope not.
Well, if they're at least consistent I have no complaints. I'm not in favor of any dress codes, but consistency is more important.
The problem with everyone here is that they cannot grasp that America is not France, except for Powerdoc, who does not fully grasp it either, but at least understands that he is French.
Originally posted by bunge
Well, if they're at least consistent I have no complaints. I'm not in favor of any dress codes, but consistency is more important.
Mao was consistent too.
Originally posted by Matsu
I'm a liberal too, I still think that France is justified. I don't think they're right, but that's a different claim than to say that they're justfied.
Justified? In what way? Morally? Legal?
My mothers family could wear their kippahs when and where they wanted. I want all others to have the same right. So for me its morally wrong even if its not against any law (and if it isn´t against the law then it should be changed so individual cultural rights are respected more)
Originally posted by Scott
Mao was consistent too.
he was not. What applies to others, never applied to him. He loved to **** with a virgin everyday in order to stay young. If anyone else did the same, he will be killed.
Originally posted by Anders
Justified? In what way? Morally? Legal?
My mothers family could wear their kippahs when and where they wanted. I want all others to have the same right. So for me its morally wrong even if its not against any law (and if it isn´t against the law then it should be changed so individual cultural rights are respected more)
This law only applie to public school. In islamist or jewish school it do not applie.
This law have been made to protect the republic, from a growing extremist muslim movement, who want to promote muslim laws over the republican ones. The head scarves was one of the symbol of the movement. This movement is not limited to head scarves, he is also against any mix of the genders : thus women swim only with women, girls do not removed the head scarves in gymastic, thus they do not do sports ...
French school has always been a laic school without any references to god or a religion. Many girls are obliged by their family to wear a heardscarf : they have no choice (there is not any freedoom, when parents oblige a child to wear particular dress). Many muslims old school laws are directed against women, and are in contradiction with the republic culture wich should prevail in France.
The law is consistent ; it prohibit headscarf the kippah, and the cross. The exact wording is ' les signes religieux ostensibles sont prohibés dans l'école".
I find funny that people here cry "wolf" and are behind extrem muslim who dream to adapt the french laws to the muslims ones. The moderate muslims are for this laws.
I think many people here are too far away from France to get a clue. Strangely there is not such a big debate about this in France. Of course it will be good that anybody has the right to wear what they want, but i think it's more important to fight communitarism.
My personal point of vue is : that you can make cohabit different religions only if these religions belongs to private life, and that everypeople respect a common law and common value , the republicans values. If we start to adapt laws for a particular group of people, France will turn in a sort of liban
Originally posted by Matsu
The problem with everyone here is that they cannot grasp that America is not France, except for Powerdoc, who does not fully grasp it either, but at least understands that he is French.
That's casting quite a wide net. Of course, the term 'everyone' includes you too.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
This law only applie to public school. In islamist or jewish school it do not applie.
That really doesn´t make any difference besides:
1) Ensure more radical muslims are put in radical muslim schools
2) Give more rights for those who can afford to put their children in private schools
Originally posted by Powerdoc
This law have been made to protect the republic, from a growing extremist muslim movement, who want to promote muslim laws over the republican ones. The head scarves was one of the symbol of the movement.
I doesn´t hope white shirts and black pants ever become the symbol of any radical religious group.
Shaved heads are the symbol of neonazis. Want to outlaw that too?
Fight ideas with dialog. Not people or symbols with laws.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
French school has always been a laic school without any references to god or a religion.
The unity under the nation is comparable to the idea of unity under a religion.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Many girls are obliged by their family to wear a heardscarf : they have no choice (there is not any freedoom, when parents oblige a child to wear particular dress).
And we agree that is wrong. And yet you still think the state should tell these persons what to wear. Is it better if the state force you to do something than if your parents do?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Many muslims old school laws are directed against women, and are in contradiction with the republic culture wich should prevail in France.
1) Here you admit that its a fight between one set of ideas (republic culture) and another (religious culture). So the culture of the republic is importent enough to tell what people should wear on their head. Excatly what you say religion does.
2) Many people using head scarves aren´t doing it because of religion but because of culture. And most aren´t supressed victims of their parents or religion. Some are but not most. So with this law you hurt a lot of people to "help" a few (if you disregard extreme religious parent putting their children in private schools and the "republic protecting" aspect of this law).
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I find funny that people here cry "wolf" and are behind extrem muslim who dream to adapt the french laws to the muslims ones. The moderate muslims are for this laws.
I´m behind the individual in its fight against the state. We have a neonazi local radio here in the Copenhagen area. Am I behind neo nazism when I defend different opinions to be aired in the name of freedom of speech?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I think many people here are too far away from France to get a clue. Strangely there is not such a big debate about this in France. Of course it will be good that anybody has the right to wear what they want, but i think it's more important to fight communitarism.
1) We have a very lively debate here because we are in a very comparable situation here in Denmark
Originally posted by Powerdoc
If we start to adapt laws for a particular group of people, France will turn in a sort of liban
This is not about giving special treatment for certain groups but about not making laws against certain groups.
I have expressed my point of vue. You expressed yours. We disagree. That's ok.
You refered to a radio called Oasis. I did not make a thread about this at the time, because i am not interested to make a rant against denmark. but now that you bring this subject, i will just say that i was really surprised by this one : In the name of liberty, the Denmark governement used to give funds to these radio. In the name of liberty, they indirectly promoted a neo-nazi radio : the road to hell is full of good sentiments.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I agree we disagree.
I have expressed my point of vue. You expressed yours. We disagree. That's ok.
Arhhh. Come on. Its not fun if you don´t want to play
You are too nice. Perhaps thats a good qualification for being a mod in AO
Originally posted by Anders
Arhhh. Come on. Its not fun if you don´t want to play
You are too nice. Perhaps thats a good qualification for being a mod in AO
I agree that i am not in the right mood to play. I spent hours trying to moderate debaters here since months, i have watched closely debates and contest between members. I am not interested by becoming one of these debaters.
I think it's time for me to take some good holidays. Luckily i will take then soon.
Originally posted by Anders
Justified? In what way? Morally? Legal?
My mothers family could wear their kippahs when and where they wanted. I want all others to have the same right. So for me its morally wrong even if its not against any law (and if it isn´t against the law then it should be changed so individual cultural rights are respected more)
See, this is an example of not being able to think about the problem outside of yourself. Now, since I cannot write out my argument here, I must reduce myself to making jokes.
I fully believe that a person should be able to wear whatever they want, just not in France.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
You refered to a radio called Oasis. I did not make a thread about this at the time, because i am not interested to make a rant against denmark. but now that you bring this subject, i will just say that i was really surprised by this one : In the name of liberty, the Denmark governement used to give funds to these radio. In the name of liberty, they indirectly promoted a neo-nazi radio : the road to hell is full of good sentiments.
We are giving funds to all kind of radio stations. All you need is a small group of people backing you and noone else competing for the air space. And as long as noone else will compete for their place it is my belief they have the right. We have a lot of socialist radio stations as well and as long as they follow our rigious antidiscrimination laws they should be considered a station at line with every other political station in the eyes of the bureaucracy.
I have listened to the oasis programs a couple of times and each time I have wanted to go down with a baseball bat and taught them a thing or two. but I have not taken the time to commit myself to forming a competing radio station which i´m sure would get the airwaves from oasis (the local government aren´t excatly happy with the radio station either)
Originally posted by Matsu
See, this is an example of not being able to think about the problem outside of yourself. Now, since I cannot write out my argument here, I must reduce myself to making jokes.
I fully believe that a person should be able to wear whatever they want, just not in France.
What?
I hope I expressed that my stand is of very principle nature. Its not derived from the right of my family but from the liberal core: The individual over the mass, especially in cultural matters.
Please enlighten me a bit more: Is it a historic argument, since it only applies to France? And the word "Justified". Please tell in what way you use that word. What you have said untill now is just to cryptical.
Originally posted by Anders
We are giving funds to all kind of radio stations. All you need is a small group of people backing you and noone else competing for the air space. And as long as noone else will compete for their place it is my belief they have the right. We have a lot of socialist radio stations as well and as long as they follow our rigious antidiscrimination laws they should be considered a station at line with every other political station in the eyes of the bureaucracy.
I have listened to the oasis programs a couple of times and each time I have wanted to go down with a baseball bat and taught them a thing or two. but I have not taken the time to commit myself to forming a competing radio station which i´m sure would get the airwaves from oasis (the local government aren´t excatly happy with the radio station either)
I never doubted, that you are not the typical fan of radio Oasis.
I just finded weird that due to an uncontrolled radio funds policy, Oasis was getting money from the governement of Denmark. Luckily they fixed this problem now.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I never doubted, that you are not the typical fan of radio Oasis.
I just finded weird that due to an uncontrolled radio funds policy, Oasis was getting money from the governement of Denmark. Luckily they fixed this problem now.
Its more because of poor political involvement from ordinary people a neonazi stations can get funds. Its a great law because it 1) ensures not only freedom of expression but also means of expression and 2) its of principal nature so it isn´t giving the funds to certain political parties pet interests (arms length principle). Unfortunetly it also opens up for the possibility of funds going to the "wrong" people. Which of course everybody but the radio itself and their three listeners is sorry for.
Sounds like there may be deeper cultural, social or political factors at play.
To bring this back on topic, let's consider other religious displays in schools...
Jain -
Not intending to be facetious, but I can't see schools accepting students who are
Naked, painted with ash, and perhaps with a disciple sweeping bugs from their path
Rastafarian -
Marijuana is considered a sacrament. Dreadlocks (uncut/washed hair) de riguer in some sects.
Should Bob Marley-ish students be banned?
(arguably, "drugs in schools" policies might override)
Sikh -
Turbans and official uniform clashed famously in Canadian History when a Sikh recruit took the RCMP to the Supreme Court over the Mounties requirements that the official Dress Uniform - Red Serge, Yellow Striped Pants, Sam Brown Boots, Belt, and Flat Brim Stetson Forage Hat - meant that all recruits required the hat - ergo no turbans. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the religious display, and various challenges have since failed.
There have also been challenges over turbans and the bicycle helmet law, though only in Provincial Supreme Courts.
Of greater significance in some Sikh orders is the Kirpan, or ceremonial dagger.
Strict observance of more fundamentalist Sikhism has ruffled public policy debates (knives, even unsharpened, in schools?) used to be ok, but recent school violence has reopened this debate.
Up until the security policy changes post 9-11, kirpans on airline flights were common, and spooky.
Teaching religious tolerance to students at a younger age might help alleviate school tensions (if the parents and religious leaders aren't teaching intolerance - which might be the real source of the problem), but not having them rub each others noses in ostentatious and potentially inflammatory symbols seems practical, if applied uniformly.