 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I stopped arguing with you because I don't think this is that important a distinction, but it really does hurt my eyes. So it's not even supposed to be a counterargument, dude. Chill.
And would you please not type it. God damn, you'll be the first non-insane person I put on my ignore list since GP.
quote:
No it isn't. When he is speaking as President he is still an individual. Even the president has free exercise rights and he doesn't give that up when he is speaking. |
When he is speaking in his official capacity he does not have free exercise of speech. Otherwise, why is it that you're not allowed to tell your boss to **** off at work? |
u certainly are allowed to tell ur boss to **** off at work. what gave u the impression that that was in anyway illegal?
and ignoring me through frustration manifested in a petty grammar disagreement only shows the weakness of ur character.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
From the oath of Citizenship quoted above:
How is an atheist or polytheist supposed to say that? The oath of citizenship implies you are a monotheist, so there is no freedom of religion in the U.S. until you change that period. God has no place in any official text or any official document as it is discrimination against atheists and polytheists.
About the scarves:
I said it was seen as intimidation. It is. Some people in France are afraid that all girls will soon have to wear scarves. So the intimidation part exists, even though the fear may not be founded. Looking at what happens in Turkey is interesting, though. Turkey is secularian (ist?) but people there promote the Sharia. France doesn't want such a situation to happen, so Chirac takes measures against this. I don't think it's a good idea, but the point that these scarves cause fear is true. It would be better to educate people not to fear difference rather than to ban difference, but then it's no easy task.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
There were very, very few catholics in the United States up to that point anyway. Almost none, as a matter of fact (there were only a thousand or so at the turn of the 19th century). So I think that it wouldn't be worthwhile to overemphasize the legal discrimination during that time. Anyway, I would like to see the specifics on the laws that you mention.
My family moved to the States in 1842. It has been passed down orally that there was discrimination against catholics, but the legal system was impartial.
With regard to the Washington Monument, there was a hiatus due to lack of funding. The precipitating characters were the know-nothings, but the stone from the Pope was stolen, and had no bearing on the construction after that (other than the theft stalled momentum on the project).
That was in colonial times! Carroll was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Maryland delegate to the constitutional convention, for God's sake! We had a war over freedoms, remember!
Really, there was discrimination, but not by the state, by and large. |
Well as far as I can see, the number of Catholics in the fledgling United States is irrelevant- the legislation still remained anti-Catholic in intent and therefore discriminatory on the basis of religion, regardless of the exact population of Catholics.
Prejudice isn’t determined by the amount of people disenfranchised.
As for Carroll being discriminated against in colonial times- why yes, so he was. And all some states did with their colonial constitutions was to expunge the references to the monarch. So Catholics had to wait a further sixty years for full citizenship. Now as far as you having to see evidence of the anti-Catholic legislation is concerned, could we also see evidence for your assertion of the low number of Catholics too?
I fail to see why I should be the only one to have to come up with facts and figures.
States with anti-Catholic measures in their constitutions, post-independence, included:
South Carolina, whose 1778 constitution restricted office-holding to Protestants, and allowed all churches which endorsed the existence and public worship of one God, rewards and punishments in an afterlife, the truth of Christianity and the Bible and the obligation of all citizens to bear witness to the truth when asked by the government to do so.
Effectively, it established Protestantism, but without offering public support for it.
The 1776 North Carolina constitution restricted office-holding to those who did not deny the ‘truth of the Protestant religion’ nor hold ‘religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state.’
The constitution of Georgia also limited office-holding to Protestants.
In fact, after independence, the only state other than Virginia to abolish any kind of religious discrimination was Rhode Island, which had in colonial times discriminated against Jews and Catholics.
As for the anti-Catholic, anti-foreigner Know Nothings and the Washington Monument:
http://www.greatdreams.com/washmnmt.htm
The consensus seems to be that Know Nothing control of the scheme to erect the Monument contributed to the decline in public donations and effectively stalled further work on the project. Of course, the Civil War didn’t help.
And although no one knows who disposed of the Pope's stone, or what became of it, I'd venture to say that the Know Nothings might have just known something in that particular instance.
You can check Blackwell's Encyclopaedia of the American Revolution or Daniel J Boorstin's 'The Americans' (publi. Pelican Books 1965), so by all means don't take my word for the information about the states' constitutions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
So long as France is ethnicly "pure" |
France is not ethnically pure by any standard, and hasn't been since the King's domain extended beyond Paris in the Middle Ages. Bretons, Basques, Alsacians, Corsicans, Catalans, Flemish, you name it... all are old ethnical groups living in France. By the same token, France had a strong intra-European immigration, with Italians and Poles massively comng between the 19th century and WW2, and we had a massive flux of Portuguese and Spaniards after WW2.
There has been a strong xenophobia against these migrants, especially targeted at Italians and Poles during the 1895's depression (which partly replies to LOTM). But now, most of them have assimilated in the French culture, and you wouldn't know the difference (the Portuguese have kept more of their community ties). The fact that France looks "ethnicly pure" to your eyes show that the politic of acculturation has been a success.
Now, we have a problem with people from different races. Unlike nationality and origin, race is something you cannot help displaying. Many ignorant people believe that any Arab they encounter is an "immigrant", despite this person was most likely born and raised in France, and speaks French as well as me.
OTOH, any person would consider me as a perfect Frenchman, as my mother's Romanian upbringing doesn't show on my face.
This racism is something no government managed to reduce. Besides, the economic hardships make sure that the "they steal our jobs" speech still works well 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
So some people believe it is intimidating, the minority group has to suffer? Really... that's just dumb.
|
Yes. But then some of the minority do intimidate.
quote:
quote:
Turkey is secularian (ist?) but people there promote the Sharia. France doesn't want such a situation to happen
Why not? Don't people have the right to believe what they want?
|
No. Again, read your own oath. A citizen is supposed to forgo any previous monarch/authority and not to hold it higher than that of the government. A god is a monarch/authority. Therefore, placing a god's laws over the government is not allowed. People can think believe what they want, and they can follow the sharia as far as I'm concerned, for as long as they don't try to impose it on me.
quote:
quote:
It would be better to educate people not to fear difference rather than to ban difference, but then it's no easy task.
So you'd rather have the easy, wrong way than the harder, right way? |
I didn't say I was for that solution. I was just explaining that Chirac can't find any other way.
The whole point is what will the consequences of banning/allowing religious symbols?
If you ban them, you attack the religious feelings of some people. If not, you will have, sooner or later, non-veiled girls attacked and hassled. Which one do you prefer?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
Yes. But then some of the minority do intimidate.
No. Again, read your own oath. A citizen is supposed to forgo any previous monarch/authority and not to hold it higher than that of the government. A god is a monarch/authority. Therefore, placing a god's laws over the government is not allowed. People can think believe what they want, and they can follow the sharia as far as I'm concerned, for as long as they don't try to impose it on me.
I didn't say I was for that solution. I was just explaining that Chirac can't find any other way.
The whole point is what will the consequences of banning/allowing religious symbols?
If you ban them, you attack the religious feelings of some people. If not, you will have, sooner or later, non-veiled girls attacked and hassled. Which one do you prefer? |
I would prefer to arrest ppl who attack non veiled girls. the gov't isnt the people's nanny, its job isnt to make sure the medicine is unreachable. we can read.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
France is afraid of religion as you say because in the past religion played a very important role in France. During the revolution, when the Tiers Etat (the people) felt they were cheated by the nobles and the clergy, which systematically voted together against the people. This resulted in a lot of anti clericalism and destruction of religious places and symbols during the revolution. Next, there was a lot of petty fights between the Church and the third republic, because the church tried to ascertain its power. The French government wanted to promote freedom of religion, and to that end separated the government and the church. This resulted in particular in public, lay, schools, and private, most often catholic, schools. The principle of a lay state means you want to allow everyone to have their own religion, but that also means not letting people impose their religious beliefs upon others at school, which is the point Chirac is talking about.
quote:
I would prefer to arrest ppl who attack non veiled girls. |
And the girls might prefer not to be attacked in the first place, and thus would wear a veil out of fear. This is sometimes what's happening.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
How popular is Chirac in France? |
Currently, his popularity is quite low. There are 3 people whose popularity count in the executive: Chirac (quite low), Prime minister Raffarin (very low), and police minister Sarkozy (clearly higher than Chirac).
Although Sarkozy belongs to Chirac's party, he is ambitious and popular, which puts him at odds with Chirac for the next president's election in 2007.
Chirac often takes decisions oriented at bettering his popularity, especially since we're having elections soon March and June). However, in this issue, Chirac can be at most a judge, and has to decide between the elaborate arguments of both sides (elaborated over the months of heaten debate - heck, we discussed about it in today's dinner again and I strongly believe it will be the main Topic of christmas' dinner this year). The issue was forced upon him and he wasn't the one who elaborated the arguments. In the end, he was more favorable to the 3rd Republic type of integration, while Sarkozy is more favourable to the American-type of integartion.
quote:
Spiffor, you mentioned that the French culture was spread by the King as he move his borders away from Paris. If you know, what language was spoken circa 1400 in the former Roman province that was ceded to the Franks during the time of Goth rule of Italy and Spain (circa 536?). It seems to me that the culture of that area of France is different even today. |
Well, the French King wasn't that obvious in spreading French culture. The most important cultural edicts taken by the kings were 1) the Villers-Cotterets decree, stating that the language of the kingdom was French (and not Latin, despite it being in used by the scholars of the time, i.e. the religious) and 2) the revocation of the Nantes' edict, said revocation resulted in forcing the French population to be Catholic.
I used the Middle Ages as a starting point of when the King began to centralize France (the Kingdom existed way before this, but the king in Paris was nearly powerless before expanding the "King's domain").
Most areas far from Paris are still distinguished from the center, and you have specific accents, and specific / stigmatised behaviours (the Marseillais are assumed to be exaggerating everything they say). However, the actual differences between Paris and the rest of France is very small compared to what it was 130 years ago, before the 3rd Republic began homogenizing the French society. It was difficult in the past to find Bretons or Corsicans that spoke French. Now, it is the precise opposite that happens.
As for your question more precisely, I seem to know there was a language division between the "langue d'oil" in the North (where "oil" meant "yes") and the "lange d'oc" in the South (where "oc" meant "yes"). The "langue d'oil" has won IIRC, but I cannot give you any details on this. I think google can help you on this one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-12-2003 09:32
.
.
|