 |
| |
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
What an idiocy! While I'm agnostic myself, such a law is a breech of religious freedom for me. I do support those, who want to have the obligatory cross in all classrooms in Austria's, Italy's and Germany's public schools removed, because it inserts the notion that a specific public institution endorses one religion. I could even live with the banning of religious items and cloth for teachers, as they represent the secular state, but I don't see the need for such an action.
But banning all religious items, for students too, is interfering with freedom of religion. What's next? Cutting the "Beikele" (don't know if it's called like that in English too. It's the Jiddish word for those special hair of orthodox jews) of jewish students and teachers? Forbid all muslim men (and only them) to wear beards, because it is a religious symbol? What a crap! I can't even describe how intolerant that is, not being able to just accept those expressions of faith. I'm even more sickened because atheists and agnostics (like me, remember) ought to be more enlightened, but this reminds me of the muslim system of "tolerance" (dimma), where "religious freedom" for Christians and Jews meant allowing them an exclusively private faith, but they were not allowed to show their faith in public "in order to not offend the faithful" or "not to threaten the faith of believers".
But still it's better than what might happen in Bavaria and Baden-Würtemberg and what Austria's far right FPÖ proposed to do: Simply forbid the muslim headscarf as a singular measure!
What a world do we live in?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I think any society where people are not given freedom of concience is sick
yours does this
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
If it goes any farther than banning displays that are actually part of the building and doctrinal recitations by teachers, then it goes to far. If Vesayen is correct, this is rediculous. If you want to have freedom from seeing religion expressed in any form, you can borrow my ice pick and gouge out your eyes. |
I read about this a week ago on another message board-that one had a more specific(and English) article-students are banned from wearing crosses, jewish stars, from muslims wearing veils etc...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, Christians do not feel threatened by religious symbolism of religions not their own because we are confident in our beliefs. This restriction merely illustrates how insecure atheists are in what they believe, that if to look on a cross on someones neck must be banned to make them comfortable.
|
I dont think its insecurity, so much as these athiests in particular are selfish vindictie *******s.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hagbart
I think all this has something to do with the French Revoloution back in 1700 and something. It was decided back then that state and religion should be completely separated.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. |
the only thing this has to do with seperation of church and state is that this is the state forcing a lack of church
it is not just being out of the way
it is discouraging
just as bad (if not worse) from my prospective
seperation means that state is not involved with church
not that state discourages church
this is similiar to how it is in China
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I thought the French already had this ban, and have had it for many, many years?
And Hagbart is right, it has nothing to do with atheism. France has had bloody religious wars between rival denominations. |
this is not a ban on schools
this is a ban on students
it is just like what they do to Nazis
the fact that they are treating the religious on a similiar level would scare the **** out of me if I was a french person
Jon miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
France challenges religious symbols
Ponders whether schools should be free of veils, yarmulkes, crosses
BY JAMEY KEATEN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
PARIS ? A parliamentary group today called for a ban on the wearing of any visible religious symbols in schools, broadening a debate on whether Muslim girls can wear Islamic head scarves in class.
France's body politic is heating up over the issue, with some religious leaders fearing a ban will foment religious extremism while politicians say it is needed to preserve the country's cherished separation of religion and state.
The issue is all the more thorny because the Muslim community in France is large and growing at some five million, the largest in western Europe.
President Jacques Chirac returned the long-running topic to the political front burner in July, appointing a blue-ribbon panel of French intellectuals to study the broader issue of French secularism and recommend whether new laws are needed to defend it.
The 20-person panel, headed by national mediator Bernard Stasi, will report to the president by the end of the year. Its proposals are to provide the basis for an eventual decision on the head scarf issue.
Stepping into the fray today, a parliamentary panel issued a text calling for new rules that would forbid any religious or political signs in public schools and be "brief, simple, clear and the least subject to interpretation as possible."
As it now stands, a 1989 ruling by the Council of State, France's highest administrative body, forbids any "ostentatious" religious wear, and individual schools can decide how to enforce it.
The parliamentary group went beyond that in its recommendation, urging a ban on "any symbol that the eye can see," which would include Islamic head scarves, Christian crucifixes or Jewish skullcaps.
Also today, the opposition Socialist party voted unanimously, with three abstentions, to present a bill that would forbid wearing of "religious signs" in school, and it urged principals and deans to start a dialogue with students on the matter right away.
A poll released today showed some 63 per cent of respondents believe a new law is necessary to ban the head scarf and other religious wear in schools, while only 33 per cent said none was needed. The survey of 950 people was conducted by the Ipsos polling agency on Nov. 7-8 for weekly Le Point magazine. No margin of error was given.
Chirac, whose party controls parliament, has said he will wait until Stasi's commission finishes its work before making a decision, but he has left open the possibility of a new law. Europe-1 radio reported last week that Chirac backs a strict and broad law that would also ban political and labour union insignia.
A broad spectrum of politicians from both left and right favour a new law. But religious, educational and one high-profile political holdout, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, are opposed.
"A new law immediately would be a dangerous position viewed as a humiliation that would lead to the radicalization of one another," he said recently. "The law must not be conceived or understood as raising questions about a religion."
A leading teachers union says the matter should by resolved individually by schools, while some religious leaders say a ban would only drive parents to put their children in religious schools.
The work by Stasi's commission goes beyond just the head scarf. It would need to address the resistance of some Muslim women to visiting a male doctor, or, ultimately, whether separate times for swimming should be enacted for women and men at public schools, for religious reasons.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=968350060724
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I like the way it is done in the US (traditionally) much bbetter
jM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
Contrast France with the US
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Jim Philipps
202/225-3665
Ensuring Religious Freedom
The House recently passed important legislation to ensure that government laws and regulations do not interfere with religious observance or the operation of religious institutions.
The bill, known as the Religious Liberty Protection Act, is supported by a broad range of religious groups, representing virtually every major religious denomination in the country. These groups – which represent many different political, as well as religious beliefs – banded together behind this bill because all wanted to ensure that the activities and beliefs of their adherents and institutions would not be unduly inhibited.
Congress had to pass this bill because an earlier attempt to protect religious observance was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The new bill is designed to avoid the objections the court raised.
Here’s the kind of problem the law is designed to address. Let’s say a school has a dress code that could be interpreted to prevent the wearing of articles of clothing or jewelry that are a sign of religious belief, whether that might be a cross or a Jewish skullcap. This law would ensure that a student could wear the religious clothing.
This is not simply a theoretical question. In one actual case, a school district in South Carolina banned the wearing of hats in its buildings. The rule was interpreted to prohibit a Jewish student from wearing a yarmulke while attending school. Under this bill, the student would have legal protection to ensure that he could practice his faith.
Here’s another way the bill would protect religious observance. Under the bill, religious observance could not be unduly burdened by state and local land use laws. In several real cases, zoning boards and courts have issued decisions denying religious organizations permits to build or expand without having adequate reasons. The bill will prevent religious organizations and individuals from facing such unfair barriers.
This bill will not, however, interfere with communities making fair decisions that have some unavoidable impact on religious groups as part of a reasonable policy. For example, a church kitchen would not be exempt from food safety laws. Following long-time court precedents, the bill will not interfere when a policy furthers a "compelling" public interest and is designed to have the smallest impact possible on a religious group.
This bill simply makes good sense. It protects one of our fundamental Constitutional rights – the "free expression of religion" guaranteed by the First Amendment – without interfering with other public goals.
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (New Hartford) represents all or portions of Broome, Chenango, Delaware, Herkimer, Madison, Montgomery, Otsego, Oneida and Schoharie counties.
http://www.house.gov/boehlert/religious.htm
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2003 22:43
. Many people recieved a religious upbringing, and thus have religion hard-wired into themselves on one level or another.
In those regions, where the anti-headscarf law is proposed, it's supported especially by people with a christian (catholic) background, so don't speak for all Christians. 
7/10
|