Immigration 'Le voile' banned in France.

[Maciamo]

I'm well aware of the situation in France & I know that the head-scarf is not necessarily a clear religious obligation proscribed by the Q'ran.
But (a big but), the question is what the people believe! If they believe it to be obligatory they should be allowed to wear, just like any Sikh should be allowed to wear the Kara (or the Turban).

Big "but" indeed. Hitler and his followers also believed that society would be better without the Jews. Should anything be allowed because people believe in them ?

If you say that those who don't like to follow the new rules just can go to private schools, this is flawed logic, I think. What about those who can't afford private schools?

Not a big deal. That argument was actually a trick intended to deceive international audiences. In France, all schools are financed by the government. Most schools are thus "semi-private" and represent probably 80% of all schools (I think less than 1% are really paid private schools). These are free, but not called "public", because they are independent from the government for the school rules and curriculum. Actually, lots of immigrants go to public schools (some are like ghettos), and few French people now want to frequent them because of this status bias.

Esp. in the case of Muslims they might be actually driven into the arms of religious fundamentalists who offer them education for free or for a very low fee in their religious schools.

As I said above, education in France is free, even for non public schools. The expensive private schools are the equivalent of the English "public schools" (not to confuse with "state schools") like Eaton, Harrow or Rugby, where the elite place their children for a modest 30.000 euro a year. :shock:

 

[Matthew C. Perry]

Apperantly you are being quite serious, Maciamo. I wonder if you have any idea how ridiculous you sound with all of this French superiority talk.

 

[bossel]

Big "but" indeed. Hitler and his followers also believed that society would be better without the Jews. Should anything be allowed because people believe in them ?

Normally you argue better than that. I could use Hitler just the same for my side of the argument: When the state wants to rule too much into religious life that leads to concentration camps! Just as valid as your argument: a lot of priests or religious people (not only Jews) have been killed by the Nazis, because they resisted the "Gleichschaltung" (the Nazis tried to establish a "Reichskirchenregierung", which means that all churches would have been more or less under direct Nazi rule).

Your argument is not valid anyway, I quote myself: "People are free to follow their religion & its rules as long as this doesn't infringe someone else's rights."
Hitler did infringe others' rights, very seriously so.

Most schools are thus "semi-private" and represent probably 80% of all schools (I think less than 1% are really paid private schools). These are free, but not called "public", because they are independent from the government for the school rules and curriculum.

Can't argue here since I don't know too much about the French education system, just rely on what I read & heard in the German news media. Would have to look that up, maybe later.

 

[Hachiko]

My opinion...

I think that rule that headscarves are banned is complete garbage. If they want to wear their headscarves, let them wear their headscarves! This law from a country whose Enlightenment philosophers and style of government influenced the United States to build itself on freedoms. This, I feel is a complete hypocriticism/bastardization of the freedoms France based its government on. The government needs to overturn that ruling immediately. Banning headscarves just does not make sense.

 

[Maciamo]

Apperantly you are being quite serious, Maciamo. I wonder if you have any idea how ridiculous you sound with all of this French superiority talk.

Yes, and the funniest is that I am not French and have never really lived in France. But I know most Western European countries quite well, I happen to speak French so I can easily understand French culture by talking with French people, reading books in French or watching French TV. That is why I can say as an (semi-)"outsider" that French culture and way of thinking is radically different from other Western ones in the way they stress the importance of intellectual discussion (even for the masses) and make a point in wanting to learn in depth their country and other countries' culture (history, language, society, religion...) and system. Germans and Dutch would be the nearest to the French in this regard. English-speaking countries suffer from an appalling lack of knowledge regarding other (non English-speaking) cultures. Only for learning other languages, native English speakers usually don't feel the need to do so because English is the de facto lingua franca of the world. But it's impossible to really understand a cultural group without speaking its language (the better, the easier it is to understand its culture). If you want to see it by yourself, just compare the level of discussion between English-speaking forums about Japan (this one is the most "serious" you'll find, I hope, as most others are about anime, manga, games, etc.) and French speaking forums about Japan, such as Forum Japon or LeJapon.org. Most of the discussion is about culture (literature, history, mentality...), language (the average Japanese level is also higher than here), politics, economy and such things. Proportionally very litlle in the entertainment and chit-chat section. The only problem is that French can consequently be exigent towards other's knowledge. That's why they have a very strict and elitist post rating system on Forum Japon. If someone post irrelevant, stupid (or aggressive) posts, users all give them negative points and after some point (usually a few days/weeks) they can be excluded from the forum for being too dumb. Can't imagine a similar system here.

 

[Hachiko]

Interesting sites, Maciamo (even though I can't see Forum Japon). I definitely agree with you. I learned in my anthropology class that learning a country's language is important in becoming one with that society, whether it's Japan, france, Italy, Spain, China...anywhere in the world. You have to know their language in order to plunge right in the right way.

 

[Maciamo]

I think that rule that headscarves are banned is complete garbage. If they want to wear their headscarves, let them wear their headscarves! This law from a country whose Enlightenment philosophers and style of government influenced the United States to build itself on freedoms. This, I feel is a complete hypocriticism/bastardization of the freedoms France based its government on. The government needs to overturn that ruling immediately. Banning headscarves just does not make sense.

As I said, French democracy and liberties have first been established by burning down or destrying churches during the French revolution. Contrarily to the US which came into existence almost only as a religious (mostly Protestant) colony, and create a nation "under god" (a bit like Israel), modern France (from the late 1700's) came into existence by realising that the nobility and clergy were the cause of all the grieves of the populace, and decided to change the existing country into a free and equal one for all, including serfs (the US independence didn't grant freedom to slaves until almost a century later !), with a clear separation between state and religion. In the old system, the nobility's job was to protect the clergy. The King of France (along with that of Spain) was the defender of the Catholic church, and ordered "king of divine right" ("roi de droit divin" in French), which meant he received his power directly from God. It started with King Clovis (=Louis I) in the 5th century, then Hugh Capet, first king of divine right, and ended with Louis XVI in 1789. The clergy was (and still kind of is) immensely rich and had a strong political influence (remember Cardinal de Richelieu, who was the real power behind king Louis XIII in the 3 musketeers ?). Their was a lot of ressentment against the Church. Understanding the role of (Christian) religion in French history (sorry, I am not going to explain all of it here), French people are never going to let it play a role in politics or education again.

 

[Hachiko]

As I said, French democracy and liberties have first been established by burning down or destrying churches during the French revolution. Contrarily to the US which came into existence almost only as a religious (mostly Protestant) colony, and create a nation "under god" (a bit like Israel), modern France (from the late 1700's) came into existence by realising that the nobility and clergy were the cause of all the grieves of the populace, and decided to change the existing country into a free and equal one for all, including serfs (the US independence didn't grant freedom to slaves until almost a century later !), with a clear separation between state and religion. In the old system, the nobility's job was to protect the clergy. The King of France (along with that of Spain) was the defender of the Catholic church, and ordered "king of divine right" ("roi de droit divin" in French), which meant he received his power directly from God. It started with King Clovis (=Louis I) in the 5th century, then Hugh Capet, first king of divine right, and ended with Louis XVI in 1789. The clergy was (and still kind of is) immensely rich and had a strong political influence (remember Cardinal de Richelieu, who was the real power behind king Louis XIII in the 3 musketeers ?). Their was a lot of ressentment against the Church. Understanding the role of (Christian) religion in French history (sorry, I am not going to explain all of it here), French people are never going to let it play a role in politics or education again.

Hold it, hold it. So, in the past in France, there was resentment against Catholicism, now there's resentment against Islam? By banning scarves, France involuntarily had religion play a role in politics again. That, in the book of Hachiko, is hypocriticism.

 

[jeisan]

didnt you read any of the previous posts hachi?

The ban is not only for headscarves, but all obvious religious signs, including Christian nun's headscarves, crucifix, big crosses, etc. As there are many many more Christians than Muslims (or Sikhs) in France, I don't see why Muslims are the ones to protest and create all the problems.
...
Anyhow, I suppose that before judging whether it is right or wrong, you fully understand what this is about. The ban is only for public schools and public institutions (government, etc.). That means that everybody will still be free to do what they want in the street or in private schools.

so we can see its not just head scarves and other islamic items/clothing, it bans all religious paraphernalia from all religions from being worn/displayed publicly in schools and government offices. that means no WWJD t-shirts or buddhas or stars of david or whatever else. people can wear what they please at home or on the streets.

 

[Hachiko]

didnt you read any of the previous posts hachi?


so we can see its not just head scarves and other islamic items/clothing, it bans all religious paraphernalia from all religions from being worn/displayed publicly in schools and government offices.

Which is garbage because it impedes on expression of religious identity/solidarity, IMHO.

And yes, I did read the previous posts.
And yes, I still believe it's wrong for that law to be imposed.

 

[Maciamo]

Hold it, hold it. So, in the past in France, there was resentment against Catholicism, now there's resentment against Islam?

No, there is no ressentment against Islam in particular, just the idea of religious idea infiltrating politics. Visibly it's normal to invoke the bible for American politician (even the president of that multireligious community that is the US ), but if a French politician even just referred once to the Bible, God, etc. he or she probably would have to resign immediately. That's where we see the world of difference between French and American politics.

By banning scarves, France involuntarily had religion play a role in politics again. That, in the book of Hachiko, is hypocriticism.

Is this an attempt of sophism ? The point is justly to make sure that religion doesn't play a role in politics (which is different from discussing the role of religion in politics).

 

[jeisan]

Which is garbage because it impedes on expression of religious identity/solidarity, IMHO.

so if i believed lots of sex was the only way to save my soul, i should be allowed to wear a shirt with a big orgy on the front of it to public high school, because thats my religion? or even better i should be allowed to smoke cigarettes anywhere i want because i believe the act of smoking gives praise to the almighty tobacco gods, and i want to share the holy smoke with everyone.
why dont schools/government offices have a right to impose dress codes on their students/employees? which is basicly what this is, with the addition of not hanging said banned materials, or pictures of them, on the walls or whatever of these certain buildings/pieces of land.
they can express their religious identity all they want as long as its not in those places. its really not that big a deal, as stated previously they can goto an alternative school (for free) or just choose not to work in a place that has the ban imposed on it. another thing a majority of the french people think this is a good idea, they like the law, if not it wouldnt be one today. if you dont like it, well, no one is forcing you to live in france.

 

[Maciamo]

so if i believed lots of sex was the only way to save my soul, i should be allowed to wear a shirt with a big orgy on the front of it to public high school, because thats my religion? or even better i should be allowed to smoke cigarettes anywhere i want because i believe the act of smoking gives praise to the almighty tobacco gods, and i want to share the holy smoke with everyone.

You might have said that as an extreme counter-example, but there are actually lots of branches of Hinduism (ashrams led by a guru) who preach enlightment through sex or smoking cannabis. Hindu holy men, known as "sadhus". searching google, I've found that quite a few religion (almost all, indeed), have made use of cannabis hashisch, marijuana) for mystic purposes. Check this (look for the title "The Mystic Philosophers"). In India, not only cannabis is in free sale, but I've seen "government shops" (as they call it) which sold opium too (and I've seen many poppy fields in North-West India, which only proves their is a high domestic demand through religious practices).

Would it be ok to allow people who use cannabis, opium or other drugs for their religion to advertise it at school, under the pretext of freedom to express their religion ?

Not all religion are puritan or have the same ethics or prohibitions. Personally, I find that the Christian obssession with sex as a sinful act is laughable. It only creates neurosis and self-culpability among strong believers.

As each religion has potentially nuisible elements, it is surely better to separate it from national education to give as fair and unbiased an upbringing as possible to the pupils/students.

NB : this post's content is more a reply to Hachiko than you, Jeisan.

 

[bossel]

Would it be ok to allow people who use cannabis, opium or other drugs for their religion to advertise it at school, under the pretext of freedom to express their religion ?

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that. But the question is not whether they promote their religion but whether they are allowed to wear visibly religious symbols or clothing associated with religion. This is very different from advertising a religion & from celebrating some religious ceremony at school (as smoking cannabis would probably be). Showing your religious affiliation should not be prohibited, esp. if it's part of your particular belief system.

Maciamo, it's rather hard to find online resources on France's education system, at least in regard to the private branch. I found 1 source that says you have to pay fees to attend private schools & it stated that ~15% of French pupils attend private basic schools. This corresponds to another source I found which says that 14.4% are on state-subsidised private basic schools & 0.2% on entirely private ones.

This would validate the argument that poor Islamic families might be driven to send their kids to schools funded by Islamic fundamentalist charities, although it seems in the moment there are very few of those.
Do you have any other sources? If necessary on French, but preferably English or German.

 

[Maciamo]

I found 1 source that says you have to pay fees to attend private schools & it stated that ~15% of French pupils attend private basic schools. This corresponds to another source I found which says that 14.4% are on state-subsidised private basic schools & 0.2% on entirely private ones.

My only sources right now is what I heard and saw in France. But I know very well the Belgian educational system, which is almost identical to the French one, except that religion is allowed in private school (indeed most schools are outright Catholic). 99% of schools are state-funded, and among these I would say that 80% are private (indepedent in management, though state financed and thus free) and 20% public (all with the same programme and mostly lower-class and immigrant pupils). As I said, the only real private schools for which you have to pay are the very exclusive and snobbish ones.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Bottom line, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that there should be a complete separation of church and state. No religion should, in any way, shape, or form, be the least bit promoted in any government structure. Thomas Jefferson, I believe, said something like there should be a wall built between the church and the state. That's how it should be everywhere.

It shouldn't have to be this complicated.

Ah, I found it. Here's the quote by Thomas Jefferson:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

Too bad it seems the U.S. government has forgotten what one of the most revered forefathers of this country once said.

 

[Hachiko]

Not all religion are puritan or have the same ethics or prohibitions. Personally, I find that the Christian obssession with sex as a sinful act is laughable. It only creates neurosis and self-culpability among strong believers.

I agree with you, as an atheist. Pardon if I go out on a limb, gang, but IMHO this is the price to pay for having a Neolithic Revolution 10 milleniums ago. Followin the rise of agriculture, cities, and nations, we incorporate things like religion into our lives, and the concepts of Christianity, Islam, sin, puritanism, etc. is introduced. If the Neolithic Revolution didn't take place (or anytime from 10,,000 years ago until now), we wouldn't have heard of the concept of sin, and its "ugliness." On the flip side, we would be where we are today if we didn't have it. Hell, we wouldn't have been born, and the computer wouldn't have been made!

As each religion has potentially nuisible elements, it is surely better to separate it from national education to give as fair and unbiased an upbringing as possible to the pupils/students.

Indeed, our country has a "separation of church and state," to confirm kirei's statement. Here in the US, many schools have uniform codes. The very first public school district in the USA that incorporated school uniforms was in Long Beach, CA (of which I work for).

 

[Keeni84]

Quote:
The Americans have "invented human rights". Their culture is probably more advanced than most others reguarding these issues

Hmm? Do I smell "ethnocentrism"?
Human rights are no US invention. Even the ancient Greeks had already something like that. The modern concept of human rights developed over time, but esp. in the 17th & 18th century in Europe.
More advanced? Like in Guantanamo Bay?

Damn, did anyone else notice the SARCASM that I was using when I posted that. My post was a carbon copy of Maciamo's except for the fact that I replaced French with American.

And BESIDES the fact that it was SARCASM, why am I being called out on it, when Maciamo orginally posted it? I mean, WTF?

The Americans have "invented human rights". Their culture is probably more advanced than most others reguarding these issues, which explains why they are so often misunderstood (as other cultures haven't reached that level of understanding yet).



I am sorry, but "the Americans" who declared the human rights and independence where almost all British-born (with a few Germans). Today's American population includes people from all the world, and those of Anglo-saxon descent barely represent half of them. There are very big differences in mentality between ethnic, religious and regional groups. Politically the difference betwen states like Massachussets, Vermont, Texas, California or Ohio are startingly.

France hasn't changed much ethnically. Furthermore, France is a very intellectual country, while the US isn't (by Europeans see it as a redneck country). And human rights can only be understood and applied politically by an educated and rational population. Such an ideal society does not exist, but it is obvious that a higher proportions of French than American people like discussing politics and philosophy. There are lots of bright intellectuals in the US, but they only represent a little percentage of the total. Debating poltical or philosophical isssues (like human rights, religions, etc.) is France's national sport. America's national sport is showing that you're "righter" and stronger (but not cleverer) than your neighbour.

But have you ever been to France or do you speak French before even comparing ?

DAMN, Maciamo don't even play! I suppose you feel yourself to be an intellectual. If that were so, then you would know that my above comment was a sarcastic reponse to YOURS. Heh. Intellectual?


Anyway, I don't understand how France can claim to be so Intellectual yet they cannot mentally separate Church from State. If ya'll are so intellectually superior to the rest of the world, you wouldn't have as many problems as you do--especially with issues such as these.

ANYWAY, separation of church and state is good. However, I don't understand how allowing children to wear religious symbols in school is going against church and state. Those children are not forcing anyone to do anything, just like non-religious people coming to school with no religious clothing on are not forcing people to stop being religious. I don't get it.

Anyway, I'm glad that I am able to express myself freely in school. Thank GOD for that.

 

[bossel]

And BESIDES the fact that it was SARCASM, why am I being called out on it, when Maciamo orginally posted it? I mean, WTF?

Have to say sorry again. Seems, I make a lot of mistakes when discussing with you. Should display more of an intellectual activity when I see your name. :blush:

Anyway, I don't understand how France can claim to be so Intellectual yet they cannot mentally separate Church from State. If ya'll are so intellectually superior to the rest of the world, you wouldn't have as many problems as you do--especially with issues such as these.

I think, Maciamo already stated that he is not French. (BTW, neither am I.)
I have serious doubts that you could claim a whole society is intellectually superior, anyway. There is too much variety in every society. But you may be able to say that there is on average a higher educational level, which is measurable.

However, I don't understand how allowing children to wear religious symbols in school is going against church and state. Those children are not forcing anyone to do anything, just like non-religious people coming to school with no religious clothing on are not forcing people to stop being religious.

Oops! I agree with you!
:shock:

 

[Keeni84]

lol Maciamo isn't even French and he's reppin' them up like that! Hahahahaha! Whatever floats his boat!