 |
| |
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Since the students are to be ratted out by the schools' director, you can expect a case-to-case basis. That's like saying the law won't stop the headaches we had for a decade.
A protest organization is assumed to be forbidden at school. Political expression is supposed to be banned from school the same as religious expression. Now, of course, there is more or less tolerance depending on the school's director; but I haven't seen any school tolerate the formal existence of a political or religious organization within its walls. |
OK, suppose one student begins to make a habit of just mentioning his or her religious affiliation whenever he or she meets someone and it catches on? How would the school deal with that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Why shouldn't students be allowed to express political thoughts in school in a non-disruptive manner? |
The real reason behind it is that the 3rd Republic used Schools to spread its homogenized culture in the whole French territory, and it couldn't suffer any competition in the formation of young minds.
But these principles of old, despite being pragmatical, have been enshrined ever since. And it has a usefulness too. The (official) refusal of any organized political expression makes things more simple, since there would not be any need to judge if a political expression is disruptive or not. The very reason we are having so much trouble with the Scarf is that we didn't ban all religious symbols altogether; unlike the assumed complete ban of all political expression altogether.
Besides, I strongly think such rules should be enforced in Kindergarten and Little School (how do you call this?), because the kids should be protected from hearing the crap coming directly from other kids' parents.
OTOH, the ban of political expression has not been stringently enforced, just like the ban on religious expression. The students don't hesitate to use the School's classrooms to organize strikes (which are often blatantly manipulated by various leftist parties), and I even remember having no trouble at all when I wandered the highschool with Commie Newspaper l'Humanité clearly seeable (my mother warned me constantly though  )
By the same token, the ban on "ostentatoire" religious signs, that happens for a long time, is not stringently enforced. Most often, the directors do discuss with scarved girls, and a compromise is found. There are only few cases where both the girls and the director have been rock-heads 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
In fact, the school should be an open forum for political and religious expression, where students need not fear persecution for beliefs they express. In short, I believe the school should be teaching tolerance. |
Some classes (generally from the end of junior high and later) do have 'debates', in which the teacher tries to act as a guardian of tolerance. Language courses and history courses are where such debates are held.
Besides, an exercize of French courses is to write an essay, where the student is asked to give his opinion, and the teachers always assure they don't give bad marks to opinions not their own (I have met only a few teachers who stated and even taught their opinions, and I think it was completely inappropriate).
But these areas of political expression are within a clear frame. Non-educational politics are to be out of school. This si precisely to avoid seeing the out-of-classroom 'mob rule' we see during a strike, when non strikers are harassed to come demonstrate 
I personally think religious expression, if it's hijacked by mob rule, is even worse than political expression, because you can't argue with religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
My english grammar is not so good that I can credibly use this tactic. ;D
Let us try to explain again :
If I swear the oath without the reference to god, it indicats that I have made a choice and decided not to ask for the help of god; from that one must deduce that I am an atheist.
On the contrary, if I swear the oath with the reference to god, it is clear that I am a believer.
The option is therefore equivalent to a disclosure of my religious beliefs. |
poor use of logic. incorrect use of causality. at BEST u could say that statistically ppl who don't use god when they swear their oaths are less likely to believe in god or be religious.
maybe the guy is jewish and thinks u r refering to the xtian version and not his, or muslim. maybe he is xtian but plans on lying and doesn't want to goto hell. maybe he is xtian and feels that god's authority is not neccessary in legal matters.
there are literally innumerable reasons, u'd have to ask the guy "are u religious" not simply infer from his lack of use of swearing an oath under god.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
OK, fine. And the reasons we have a different view of the death penalty than y'all do has to do with history specific to the US - now could y'all STFU about it and allow the US as a fellow democracy to run OUR justice system as we see fit, without attempting to prevent extradition of fugitives, etc? |
Sure, when it's your citizens. However when you hold OUR citizens captive, then you'd better believe we're going to want them extradited so they don't face what passes for terrorist justice in the States.
Also, when you violate international conventions, then we're going to complain.
Personally i think Chirac is going a little to far. I support a secular state, thus I think school prayer, singing hymns in school, having crosses on walls, teaching any religion as truth, etc., shouldn't be allowed. However I think personal dress should be. I think the President saying God Bless America is a bit much too, since he is supposed to represent all US citizens, many of whom are not Christians.
As for the arguments about secular vs religious law, they're not trying to say their religious law is more important, they are trying to stop a ruling on what they can or cannot wear. Would France ban the wearing of all scarves, or wearing crosses as jewelry? No, just a ruling for schools. I agree with the spirit, of removing all indoctrination and not forcing religion onto anyone. I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as they don't force it on anyone else, I don't see why they can't practise it and conform to their religious traditions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as they don't force it on anyone else, I don't see why they can't practise it and conform to their religious traditions. |
funny I believe in freedom of religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Yavoon, if you read his post more carefully, he is defending the right to wear those clothes. |
pretty sure I quoted the post I responded to. and while it makes NO mention of the muslims in school. it does give support to the basic premise that all the ppl who support the ban have said.
freedom from religion is good.
so unless u r refering to a different post I will have to disagree w/ u here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, I agree with Kirn. I think he was defending the right to wear those clothing. |
same response.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
He was quite explicit, and, in light of this post, attacking his next post in the way that you did makes no sense. |
obviously not the post I responded to.
keep in mind, I dont read every post. cuz well frankly lotsa posts are like our lil exchange right now. and totally devoid of anything interesting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Oh, and as to the use of 'God' in the American legal system, you need to accept that the system as a whole has its foundations in Judeo-Christian beliefs, as does the nation. The use of 'God' has become optional in or eliminated from the oaths that we use in the legal system, and I cannot think of any document in which it is used. I may be wrong, but I believe it is incorrect that to assert that God is invoked in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, certainly, but that document carries no legal weight. |
We’ve been through this before in the ‘opportunist Christian judge/10 Commandments’ thread- the American (and English) common law systems do not have their basis in Judaeo-Christian belief systems- they arise from a body of laws and customs dating from before the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and assorted Norse settlers were converted and Christianized. Don't take my word for it- Thomas Jefferson thought so too. Try to find the ten commandments enshrined in common law- you won't.
The Constitution of the United States indeed does not invoke a Christian (or any other belief system’s) god, and as far as I can recall, clergy of any stripe were conspicuous by their absence from the Constitutional Convention. Which may account for the American Constitution being devoid of any religious references whatsoever.
The phrases 'under God' and 'in God we trust' have sneaked in under the bar as it were, thanks to pressure from religious groups- and to pretend that 'god' singular somehow includes polytheists is silly- which god is a Hindu meant to choose, for example? It also excludes those who have no interest in a deity or no belief in a deity, and why the beliefs of atheists, agnostics or those who care nothing for religion and refuse to be defined primarily in terms of religion (I'm not a-theist or a-gnostic) should somehow be of less weight or importance than followers of religions is, in an avowedly secular state, a puzzlement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yavoon
pretty sure I quoted the post I responded to. and while it makes NO mention of the muslims in school. it does give support to the basic premise that all the ppl who support the ban have said.
freedom from religion is good.
so unless u r refering to a different post I will have to disagree w/ u here. |
Then let me highlight a bit of my post that you quoted
quote:
But as long as they don't force it on anyone else, I don't see why they can't practise it and conform to their religious traditions. |
Doesn't quite fit with your strawman of quote:
yes because women walking around wearing religious garments is severe indoctrination and must be stamped out immediately. quick call the department of fashion and have them pass a law that no expression of religion shall be allowed by ppl whilst in the presence of other ppl! |
Does it? 
I am in the middle. I believe that they should remove religious signs for schools. However that doesn't affect a person who wants to wear a headscarf, or a cross, or declare themselves religious. What it does stop is the school making people sing hymns in assembly, or the headmaster blessing the school. I don't believe in freedom from religion, the right to not be religious and not to have it forced upon you, but I think what you wear is personal expression. It should conform to the usual school standards, for instance, in the UK we have school uniforms, and as part for that "large labels on clothes" are not allowed. Therefore a huge cross on a t-shirt would be against that. Actually, wearing a cross as jewelry would too, but because all necklaces are banned, not because of any religious significance. Thus I would agree with students being allowed to wear a headscarf, but not have organised prayer, for example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
The only post I'd made at that time. Quite clearly stating, as Kirn and Imran have said, that I support them being able to conform to their religious traditions, but agree with the spirit that religion should not be institutionalised in public school. Indeed, religion has no place in school, but if someone wants to wear a headscarf, that's their decision. Obviously this may change if the school has a uniform.
If you don't read the posts, don't respond to them. |
I read every post I responded to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
I didn't mean to imply that public institutions should necessarily be allowed to display religious symbols. I was trying to say that you don't have a right not to ever see a religious symbol, a cross around someone's neck, for instance. Sorry for not being clear. |
I think in general we've mangled a lot of the intent of the writers of the constitution. I think its also pretty safe to say that by freedom of religion they meant freedom of the different christian denominations. not freedom of paganism or aetheism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
If I swear the oath without the reference to god, it indicats that I have made a choice and decided not to ask for the help of god; from that one must deduce that I am an atheist.
On the contrary, if I swear the oath with the reference to god, it is clear that I am a believer.
The option is therefore equivalent to a disclosure of my religious beliefs. |
Yes, we GET that... we are saying 'WHO CARES'? It doesn't influence anything in anyway. In fact it is rarer to hear 'under God'. |
Well, I care. One point that that passage makes is that it forces you to disclose your belief, or lack of. If you object to being forced to say "under God", then you are showing you are an Athiest, or at least are opening yourself to strong suspicion. In some places, such as bits of the Bible Belt, that may lead to ridicule and even mild persecution. If no-one says it, no-one knows.
Also, IMHO, asking anyone to say that phrase is indoctrinating religion. Religion should not be inherent in the legal system, a state system, and should not be state sponsored. If people want to just say it, that's fine, but nobody should be asked by a public servant to swear on the God/holy book that they may not believe in.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-12-2003 07:50
Why funny though?
so I changed it to not agreeing a little bit. It seems I do agree with you 
|