13-09-2004 02:04									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

And nothing - just giving my opinion. *shrug*

	13-09-2004 02:14									#62
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Yes, it has - lack of faith in God. The summary of atheist doctrine is lack of God. Nothing else is needed in that matter

No, it hasn't.


The problem is you're presupposing a default setting of 'belief' or 'faith' in god.

I've already told you what one atheist believes, now YOU'RE telling ME what I believe.


I do not have a lack of god, or gods. I do not find that there is a reasonable argument for the existence of a god, or gods.

This is not a 'lack' of god, or gods. This is as absurd as saying a monotheist lacks 'gods'.


Black is not an absence of pigmentation. If something possessed no hue or colour, one wouldn't see it.

And by the way, I was responding to Ludd when he said atheists replaced priests with scientists- I don't, and nor do any other atheists I know. Even so, science differs from religion in a great many important respects, one of which is a reliance on the observable or measurable, and another of which is willingness to change in the light of experimentation or evidence.

Dogma doesn't really have similar attributes.


With regard to French governmental policy, I'm not quite sure how you think my atheism is responsible for what France does or doesn't do in its schools.

I hold that religion is a private matter, for individuals, and that there should be no coercion involved.

If you have a state such as the United States which was founded on a principle of no state favouritism for any particular religion, then any show of favour towards a particular faith or religious belief in general, is discrimination and against some of the country's founding principles. Unfortunately some of the successors to Jefferson seem not to have his strength of character or principle in that respect.

You seem to be of the opinion that putting god or a mention of god in a state's constitution is more inclusive than leaving it out. I see no logic behind this. A non-religious constitution encompasses all, both those with a religious faith, and those who eschew religious belief.

More to the point, you assert I have a hatred of religion, and that I deny the religious heritage of Europe.
This is untrue.

Where in my posts have I stated a hatred of religion?

Or denied the role religion has played in shaping European history?


And again, atheism is not saying 'religion is wrong'.
Obviously, religion is right for you and many others.
It isn't for me.

Obviously this isn't getting through to you.

Is Christianity a belief in Jesus, in the Christian god, et cetera...?

Or is it disbelief in all other gods, or a specific god?


Atheism for me stems from the conviction that no reasonable argument has been presented to show that a god or gods exist.

It is not 'disbelief' in YOUR god, or 'unbelief' of Allah, or Marduk, or any other particular deity.

It is not anti-clericalism, or irreligion in the sense of hostility to religion ( I find religions usually manage to express that towards each other without any help from me).

I'm afraid unless you stop seeing religious belief as some kind of compulsory default setting for humans, you're not really going to be able to understand atheism.

	13-09-2004 02:19									#63
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Heresson quote: You're right about EU no being merely about common market and politics. EU is also our greatest hope to achieve long-lasting peace in our war-torn continent. For millenia, our countries fought each others for their greed, for their paranoia, or for their fanaticism. Religious beliefs and nationalism were used by warmongers to push peoples against each others. The European history is not one of common history or culture. We fought against each other. We hated each other. We were sure the others were some sort of demons, because they were different, because they spoke a different language, worshipped some other God, or behaved in unfathomable ways. And what?

This means, the EU having a "common culture" is an artificial construct. A few centuries ago, you would have been laughed at if you told a Spaniard you had the same culture as him (not that you would understand each other). A century ago, people could be lynched as traitors if they pretended France and Germany to be basically the same.

My point is: Christianty is not a natural cement of "common culture". Just like Indo-European languages aren't a natural cement of "common culture". Just like monotheism isn't a natural cement of "common culture". Just like beliefs in democracy aren't a natural cement of "common culture".
And that's simply because there is NO natural cement of "common culture". The construction of a common culture is completely artificial.

And since it's artificial it means we get to pick our cement.
I refuse to pick indo-European languages, because such cement of our "common culture" would mean that Finns, Hungarians and Basques aren't real members of the EU.
And by the same token, I refuse to pick Christianty, because that would mean that Muslim countries and Muslim people cannot hope to be real members of the EU.

	13-09-2004 03:10									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom I've already told you what one atheist believes, now YOU'RE telling ME what I believe.

Are You the speaker in the name of all atheists in the world?
I'm not sure if I can call a believing person myself

quote: I do not have a lack of god, or gods. I do not find that there is a reasonable argument for the existence of a god, or gods. This is not a 'lack' of god, or gods. This is as absurd as saying a monotheist lacks 'gods'.

You do not lack God. you lack belief in Him, and it makes You an atheist. Your opinion in this matter, even if it is based on logic, is a belief, is sort of religion.
How do You explain miracles like Torino veil, which couldn't have been made by technology of its time even if it dates to XIII century only, not as far as to Christ?
Don't You BELIEVE there is some logical explenation even before You find it?

quote: Black is not an absence of pigmentation. If something possessed no hue or colour, one wouldn't see it.

One would see it. As black figure. So I've heard. That black is a lack of colour, and white is all colours united. That's why white light can be crushed into colour ones, but never black one; black light is shadow, it is lack of light

quote: And by the way, I was responding to Ludd when he said atheists replaced priests with scientists- I don't, and nor do any other atheists I know. Even so, science differs from religion in a great many important respects, one of which is a reliance on the observable or measurable, and another of which is willingness to change in the light of experimentation or evidence. Dogma doesn't really have similar attributes.

Really? You only prove that science can change if confronted by new evidences made by itself. The same You can say about religion - new theologian can make changes to the olf doctrine.

quote: With regard to French governmental policy, I'm not quite sure how you think my atheism is responsible for what France does or doesn't do in its schools.

Did I say it is? Please...

quote: I hold that religion is a private matter, for individuals, and that there should be no coercion involved.

Reliogion can be, but more often it isn't a matter of an individual person.

quote: If you have a state such as the United States which was founded on a principle of no state favouritism for any particular religion, then any show of favour towards a particular faith or religious belief in general, is discrimination and against some of the country's founding principles. Unfortunately some of the successors to Jefferson seem not to have his strength of character or principle in that respect.

and?

quote: A non-religious constitution encompasses all, both those with a religious faith, and those who eschew religious belief.

WHo told You so?

quote: More to the point, you assert I have a hatred of religion, and that I deny the religious heritage of Europe. This is untrue. Where in my posts have I stated a hatred of religion? Or denied the role religion has played in shaping European history?

quote: I don't 'lack' religion. Frankly, I view that as on a par with saying I lack serious mental illness, or a second head.

quote: distinguishing features of religious creeds

Most of the things You demanded from me is indeed in Spifford's posts

quote: And again, atheism is not saying 'religion is wrong'. Obviously, religion is right for you and many others. It isn't for me.

If You find religion wrong for yourself, You find it wrong.

quote: Is Christianity a belief in Jesus, in the Christian god, et cetera...? Or is it disbelief in all other gods, or a specific god?

Both

quote: Atheism for me stems from the conviction that no reasonable argument has been presented to show that a god or gods exist.

But if You think there's a chance something would convince You, You're not an atheist in my understanding of it, and then, we've been discussing.
But You compared religion to an illness, so either You think others can not be convinced by "proofs" that convinced others, or you indeed BELIEVE that God doesn't exist, not just wasn't convinced by any proof.

quote: ( I find religions usually manage to express that towards each other without any help from me).

Even in an unnecessary place, you had to place something
directed against religions. What does it mean?

quote: I'm afraid unless you stop seeing religious belief as some kind of compulsory default setting for humans, you're not really going to be able to understand atheism.

Uou are wrong. What I see as default is that everyone has an opinion in these matters. Your opinion is that You don't know any proof.

quote: This means, the EU having a "common culture" is an artificial construct. A few centuries ago, you would have been laughed at if you told a Spaniard you had the same culture as him (not that you would understand each other). A century ago, people could be lynched as traitors if they pretended France and Germany to be basically the same.

False

quote: The construction of a common culture is completely artificial.

the truth is that every square of Europe was once Christian, even if it isn't today
And that most of European cultures are similar when compared to Middle Eastern = north African ones, to Indian ones, to Chineese ones.
And it was religion, Christianity, and part of greek/roman legacy it beared that made this happen.
Turkish culture, most of modern Albanian culture, Muslim culture of part of Bosnia, tatar culture, Kalmuk culture may be different - but these are exceptions, these lands were colonised by other culture.
If we want EU to last, perhaps we should give them some identity. I don't say christian legacy must be the most important one, but it is obvious it should be in.
Alternatively, there should be no preamble at all.
But then, EU could be considered giant body without a soul.

	13-09-2004 04:03									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Are You the speaker in the name of all atheists in the world? Even in an unnecessary place, you had to place something directed against religions. What does it mean? Uou are wrong. What I see as default is that everyone has an opinion in these matters. Your opinion is that You don't know any proof.

No I'm not, and as should be readily apparent, which you don't seem to be capable of grasping, there is no atheist pope, or bishop, or creed.


Only individual atheists.


I 'place nothing' against religion to use your terminology, and you have yet to show that I hate religion- feel free to do so before accusing me of it again.

I am aware however, as a keen student of history, of the many religious conflicts and atrocities committed in the name of religion. I would have thought that a passing knowledge or awareness of the Thirty Years' War, the English Civil Wars, the Wars of Religion in France, the rise of Islam, the activities of the Teutonic Knights, the Hussite Wars, the massacre of the Anabaptists, et al., to be at least germane to any discussion about why religion should be in a position of privilege in any state's constitution.

Tinkering with religious dogma no matter what you may think, is not the same as proposing the inverse square law, or refuting the theory of spontaneous generation, nor is it the same as offering a scientific theory for testing or an hypothesis for review.

You can show how a scientific theory will not work, or how an hypothesis is untenable. Try doing that with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity or Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception.

You can't.

It simply adds another encrustation of credulity to an already ponderous hulk.

And once more just for effect- you haven't proven the existence of a god, or your god to me. How do I lack belief in something which as far as I am aware, doesn't exist?

I don't believe in the existence of unicorns, trolls, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, the devil, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Garuda or spirits that live in trees.

Is it because I lack faith or is it because I use reason and logic?

You are failing to distinguish between a reasonable 'belief', such as that Wednesday will follow Tuesday, or that a hammer will hurt me if dropped on my bare fingers, which is based on experience, observable fact, reason, and probability, with a leap of faith or credulous belief in supernatural occurrences.

I accept it is true, or likely to be true, that ingestion of poison will prove harmful. A religious person may say however that belief or faith in their deity will render them immune to the poison (it's an extreme example, but only based on stories of past martyrdoms, or snake handling Christian sects in America, for instance).

Of course, since the advent of clinical tests and rigorous application of scientific methods, there seems to have been a falling off in 'miraculous' happenings.

And if you believe the Shroud of Turin is in some way genuine, then good for you. At some point, I seem to recall, there were more than a few religious establishments across Europe claiming to have the head of John the Baptist, a piece of the True Cross, and the Holy Foreskin.

Clearly some of them must have been mistaken.


You are also incorrect in saying I compared religion with mental illness, although it must be said that there are features common to both- aural and visual disturbances, obsessive behaviour, abuse of the body, self-mortification, anti-social activity, et cetera.

What I said, was that your saying I lacked religion was for me, like saying I lacked serious mental illness or a second head.

A second head is superfluous, and serious mental illness an impairment.

I desire neither the superfluous, nor an impairment.

It is the lack of religion which is being compared, not religion.

	13-09-2004 04:33									#66
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

For someone like Sartre atheism is a religion, but for someone like a logical positivist the existence or non-existence of God is completely irrelevant (because they believe it to be a meaningless question).

	14-09-2004 01:04									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom No I'm not, and as should be readily apparent, which you don't seem to be capable of grasping, there is no atheist pope, or bishop, or creed.

You are not capable of understanding that I don't claim there is.

quote: I 'place nothing' against religion to use your terminology, and you have yet to show that I hate religion- feel free to do so before accusing me of it again.

The quotes in which You find aspects of it disgusting and compare it to a mental disease are quite enough in my opinion.

quote: I am aware however, as a keen student of history, of the many religious conflicts and atrocities committed in the name of religion. I would have thought that a passing knowledge or awareness of the Thirty Years' War, the English Civil Wars, the Wars of Religion in France, the rise of Islam, the activities of the Teutonic Knights, the Hussite Wars, the massacre of the Anabaptists, et al., to be at least germane to any discussion about why religion should be in a position of privilege in any state's constitution.

Thirty Years War - XVI century
the English Civil Wars - XVII century if I'm not wrong
the Wars of Religion in France - XVI century
the rise of Islam - VII century
the activities of the Teutonic Knights XIII - XVI century
the Hussite Wars - XV century
the massacre of the Anabaptists - I don't know, probably XVI century, perhaps XVII
All this is a long long time ago
And religion it is not only politics. It's Micheangelo, it's Leonardo, it's Donatello, it's Bernini, it's Giotto...

quote: Tinkering with religious dogma no matter what you may think, is not the same as proposing the inverse square law, or refuting the theory of spontaneous generation, nor is it the same as offering a scientific theory for testing or an hypothesis for review.

Existance of God is scientific hypothesis.
Religion was the first attempt of understanding what seemed ununderstandable in the first contact

quote: You can show how a scientific theory will not work, or how an hypothesis is untenable. Try doing that with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity or Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception. You can't.

I can. I can claim that there is no proof for it in the holy writings and tradition.

quote: And once more just for effect- you haven't proven the existence of a god, or your god to me. How do I lack belief in something which as far as I am aware, doesn't exist?

You lack belief in it, because You think it doesn't exist.
As simple as that. Why should I prove You existance of God to prove You You lack belief in Him?

quote: Is it because I lack faith or is it because I use reason and logic?

It is because your logic and reason resulted in lack of faith.

quote: You are failing to distinguish between a reasonable 'belief', such as that Wednesday will follow Tuesday, or that a hammer will hurt me if dropped on my bare fingers, which is based on experience, observable fact, reason, and probability, with a leap of faith or credulous belief in supernatural occurrences.

Because there is no real difference.
For some, existance of the world is enough proof for existance of God. It depends on a person. Someone's experience, observation, reasoning may tell Him God exists

quote: I accept it is true, or likely to be true, that ingestion of poison will prove harmful. A religious person may say however that belief or faith in their deity will render them immune to the poison (it's an extreme example, but only based on stories of past martyrdoms, or snake handling Christian sects in America, for instance).

You are failing to distinguish religion and superstition

quote: Of course, since the advent of clinical tests and rigorous application of scientific methods, there seems to have been a falling off in 'miraculous' happenings.

That something can be explained in scientific way, it doesn't mean it stops being a miracle

quote: And if you believe the Shroud of Turin is in some way genuine, then good for you. At some point, I seem to recall, there were more than a few religious establishments across Europe claiming to have the head of John the Baptist, a piece of the True Cross, and the Holy Foreskin.

Again, You laugh at religion/superstition instead of answering me. How do You explain to Yourself existance of Shroud of Turin?

quote: Clearly some of them must have been mistaken.

Which is of no relevance to the question of Shroud of Turin

quote: You are also incorrect in saying I compared religion with mental illness, What I said, was that your saying I lacked religion was for me, like saying I lacked serious mental illness or a second head. A second head is superfluous, and serious mental illness an impairment. I desire neither the superfluous, nor an impairment. It is the lack of religion which is being compared, not religion.

Comparing lack of religion with lack of mental ilness IS comparing religion with mental illness

quote: although it must be said that there are features common to both- aural and visual disturbances, obsessive behaviour, abuse of the body, self-mortification, anti-social activity, et cetera.

And this is comparing them as well

quote: For someone like Sartre atheism is a religion, but for someone like a logical positivist the existence or non-existence of God is completely irrelevant (because they believe it to be a meaningless question).

Then, they are not quite atheists, but agnostics.

	14-09-2004 02:07									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The athiest bashers are out in force.

	14-09-2004 02:21									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Odin The athiest bashers are out in force.

Well, so far, that's only Heresson and BK really. All the other posters in this thread seem to be either agnostics or atheists, unless I missed somebody.

	14-09-2004 20:24									#70
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Atheism is an anti-religion, it's belief and doctrine is that all (other) religions are false. It's followers will usually actively pursue that belief and confront, debate, and try to convert the followers of other religions. It's counter to the spiritual varies, but typically it is replaced by an unending faith into science (or scientists). An atheist's priest wear's a labcoat instead of a robe. Agnotism is basically just apathy.

It's a very easy issue to resolve.

What is your answer to the question, "Do you believe that there exists one or more deities?"

If you answer yes, you a theist.

If you answer no, you are an atheist.

If you answer I don't know, you are an agnostic.

One very important thing to note is an atheist is simply somebody who lacks a belief in a god (or a group of gods). She does not necessarily reject such a notion. This is called weak (or negative) atheism.

There also exists a group of people who hold that there are good reasons to not believe in gods. This is called strong (or positive) atheism. Strong atheists are a subset of weak atheists.

A lot of people confuse the two.

	14-09-2004 21:45									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I'll give you some good reasons. How about the Thirty Years War for a start? Or how about the fact that there are so many religions which are in fundamental disagreement in our societies? People always think that the religion that will be used to make law will be theirs rather than somebody else's. I can't quite work out why people think this way.

I hate when I agree 100% with you, Aggie.

You hit the heart of the matter, though, saying that everybody assumes it will be their religion. A good example near me is considering how quickly Roy Moore's support would have vanished if he had put a monument to the five pillars of Islam in his courtroom instead of the 10 commandments.

	14-09-2004 23:18									#72
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor This means, the EU having a "common culture" is an artificial construct. A few centuries ago, you would have been laughed at if you told a Spaniard you had the same culture as him (not that you would understand each other). A century ago, people could be lynched as traitors if they pretended France and Germany to be basically the same.

A few more centuries ago, the same could have been said about Paris and Lyons or Madrid and Salamanca.

	14-09-2004 23:18									#73
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Tell that to Christians massacred through history by pagan Romans

Eh. Romans were tough on crime. They didn't like vandals going around smashing other people's property just because it was "idolatrous".

	14-09-2004 23:21									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by St Leo A few more centuries ago, the same could have been said about Paris and Lyons or Madrid and Salamanca.

Absolutely. The concept of "common culture" is bound to be an artifician construct, no matter how large or small the community sharing a culture is.

	15-09-2004 00:52									#75
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by St Leo quote: Originally posted by Heresson Tell that to Christians massacred through history by pagan Romans Eh. Romans were tough on crime. They didn't like vandals going around smashing other people's property just because it was "idolatrous".

Such things started pretty late, with the rise of monastery movement.
And pagans used to destroy Christian places of cult legally - because the emperor ordered to do so

quote: Absolutely. The concept of "common culture" is bound to be an artifician construct, no matter how large or small the community sharing a culture is.

But the same You can claim that each person has his own culture. No-one claims that Europeans have identical culture, but compared to a ME culture, Chineese culture etc, it can be treated as one.

	15-09-2004 02:35									#76
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Well, so far, that's only Heresson and BK really. All the other posters in this thread seem to be either agnostics or atheists, unless I missed somebody.

Mostly just Heresson, since he's doing a fine job of it all by himself.

I find it funny that the atheists are complaining about a dogpile of one.

	15-09-2004 02:57									#77
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

And I missed your earlier reply, Spiffor.

Sorry.

quote: It is possibly to roughly measure many societal phenomenons, with social science. Sure, the measure is crude in comparison with a very complex reality, since concepts such as "liberty" get reduced to mathematically useable indicators (such as "# of encounters with the police last month", "# of times the subject felt being oppressed last month" etc.

Social science has many problems when stacking up to the harder sciences on an empirical basis. And I include history among these. They really have two distinct levels of proof.

quote: As imperfect as it is, it is still possible to evaluate the impact of a policy on the real world. It is impossible to evaluate the impact of a policy in terms of "does it make God happy ?", unless you agree with the basic and unprovable premises that there is a God, and that his demands are known to us.

Just as you say here that one can qualitatively analyse a social condition, so can you qualitatively answer the question of whether God exists.

Sure, you can't prove it like you would other scientific principles, but on the level of philosophy, it can be shown.

Secondly, regarding his demands, that is what Christians say, that they know what his demands are in the form of divine revelation. It's one thing to assert that God is unknowable, but quite another to say that you do know him, and have spoken to him.

Are you open to discussing the possibilities of divine revelation?

quote: And do you wish to see your religion become tainted again by petty politics?

If getting my hands dirty in politics is what is needed to protect my religious freedoms, then by all means, I will get them dirty.

If the politicians did their job and protected religious freedoms so that we don't end up like France, then I wouldn't have to get my hands dirty.

It is a sad day when people abide to the loss of their rights passively.

quote: this is probably one of the reasons there are so few student strikes in highschool.

We had them over issues like smoking in the school, where the smokers walk out one day, and the non-smokers the next.

Peace is no excuse to strip away expression.

quote: AFAIK, the principle they "violate" (they actually only violate it in the minds of zealots who uphiold the letter rather than the spirit of the law) doesn't belong to the constitution. It is however a principle that has an extremely strong cultural value to us: School is to be "laïc". Religion-free.

Which is a principle in your constitution, is it not?

Secondly, what gives you the authority to judge these people? How do you know that they follow the letter and not the spirit of their law?

Perhaps the Catholic church opposed the public schools in the past, but times change! What was once an essential component of keeping independence can hardly be said to be the same today.

Secondly, your constitution does not anticipate relations between non-Catholic faiths, such as the muslims. Should they not recieve their due consideration?

quote: Until 16, it is considered that Children must be shielded from manipulation, and the parents are the obvious shield-bearers.

No, you have made the state the shield bearer, by barring religious expression in the schools. The parent seems to have little say in the public system as to what their child should be taught.

quote: We erect bubble-zones (we even speak about "Sanctum School") because of the belief that, by doing so, the children's education will be free of interference that will slow it, and that will hurt the integration within French society the Children can derive from School.

So there we come across some very important points.

1. Religion of any sort hurts the integration of children into French society.

2. Teaching children religion slows their education.

These are both affirmations of atheism, if I ever heard any.

Now, don't you think these religious people in France will object to number 1? They are a part of society just as much as you are. I would have a problem with funding schools that taught what I believed to be detrimental to society.

What if the Catholics withheld their taxes from the state? I would if I were them.

Now, as for number 2, do you teach anything in public school written by someone who was religious? I ask this because he must be hopelessly backwards in having learned religion as compared to our most enlightened people today.
quote:

quote: Most private Schools get subsidized, as they teach the same contents, with the same methods than in public schools. However, religious education is allowed in private schools (without subsidies), and the headscarf-ban doesn't apply there.

So you have a segregated system, but rather than between blacks and whites, you have the spiritual, and the dead.

	15-09-2004 05:22									#78
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I find it funny that they atheists are complaining about a dogpile of one.

I find it funny that a complain made by Odin alone comes from "they atheists"

	15-09-2004 05:41									#79
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: find it funny that a complain made by Odin alone comes from "they atheists"

Sauce for the goose.

And it should be the atheists.

Darn typos.

	15-09-2004 06:03									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Secondly, regarding his demands, that is what Christians say, that they know what his demands are in the form of divine revelation. It's one thing to assert that God is unknowable, but quite another to say that you do know him, and have spoken to him.

Let's say your country suddenly decides to make God happy, and to follow a religious agenda. There's a catch however: they have decided to make the Muslim God, Allah, happy, thanks to the compelling proof found in the Kuran.
I'm sure you'd be delighted being forced to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, to be barred from wearing T-shirts and shorts, in order to follow the national policy of pleasing Allah

quote: We had them over issues like smoking in the school, where the smokers walk out one day, and the non-smokers the next. Peace is no excuse to strip away expression.

Actually, I would like more highschool strikes.

quote: Which is a principle in your constitution, is it not?

Nope. Our constitution is mostly about decision-making, and light on principles.
The only article that mentions laicity is the Article 1 of the preamble:
"La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances."
"France is an indivisible, laic, democratic and social Republic. She ensure that all citizens are equal before the law without distinction of origin, race or religion. She respects all beliefs".
Public schools being religion-free is not a constitutional principle. However, it has a probably stronger influence on the French people than any constitutional article would.

quote: Secondly, what gives you the authority to judge these people? How do you know that they follow the letter and not the spirit of their law?

Since you are defending "these people", I would imagine there's a misunderstanding I oppose this law which I find contraproductive. The "zealots" am criticizing here aren't religious ones, for once. They are the zealots of the holier-than-thou principle, that school must be religion-free.
The principle of a laic school was direly needed back in the 1870's, when the Catholic Church used its role in education to continue mind-controlling the population. However, as time flew by, this useful principle turned into a dogma. Many people (the supporters of the headscarf ban) don't understand anymore what laicity at school could mean, and to them, it means schools must be closed to religions.
This is absurd.

quote: Secondly, your constitution does not anticipate relations between non-Catholic faiths, such as the muslims. Should they not recieve their due consideration?

Again, our constitution has nothing to do with it. Our main problems with the integration of Muslims come from old conceptions about the French community, which are far older than our constitution.
And Muslims should recieve their due consideration. Fortunately, things are progressing in this regard, in that there are more and more decent mosques, and the Aid-El-Kebir is now organized in a much better way. In general, the Muslims can now worship in satisfying conditions in France, although there is still room for improvement.

quote: No, you have made the state the shield bearer, by barring religious expression in the schools. The parent seems to have little say in the public system as to what their child should be taught.

The parents can vote. And there was actually a huge debate about School shortly before the headscarf scandal erupted, and the society gave serious feedback to the State about the educational system.

quote: So there we come across some very important points. 1. Religion of any sort hurts the integration of children into French society.

Not religion per se. But the public display of religion does. In France, we strongly feel that religion is a private matter, that becomes social in the family and the Church, nowhere else.
Someone who shoves his religions to others is sure to get badly seen by French people, who hate it.

quote: 2. Teaching children religion slows their education.

Nope, if done outside of school, it's not a problem. However, when courses get delayed by endless and pointless debates similar to what we have in the OT (in general a classroom debate is like this: two opinionated students have a pointless argument with each other, while the rest of the class can't say one word), they do disturb the educational rythm. If people want to argue about religion and politics, there is another place to do that: anywhere else than in Public Schools.

quote: Now, don't you think these religious people in France will object to number 1? They are a part of society just as much as you are. I would have a problem with funding schools that taught what I believed to be detrimental to society.

Your beliefs aren't detrimental to society. What is detrimental to society is when you (or your fellow religionists from any confession) shove it at other people. Especially at people who are manipulable like schoolchildren, and who have no choice but to go to the place where you want to proselytise.

quote: What if the Catholics withheld their taxes from the state? I would if I were them.

Then the police would come, and take your furniture for the State to repay itself.

quote: Now, as for number 2, do you teach anything in public school written by someone who was religious? I ask this because he must be hopelessly backwards in having learned religion as compared to our most enlightened people today.

We do teach some things religious people said, wrote, painted etc. We just don't teach the spiritual aspect of it, because such is the role of the Church, not of School.

quote: So you have a segregated system, but rather than between blacks and whites, you have the spiritual, and the dead.

We have a segregated system that is terrible, as it is strongly racist, and significantly islamophobe (there are also traces of antisemitism in "mainstream" France, but most antisemitism can be found among the alienated Arab youth)

	15-09-2004 06:13									#81
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: to be barred from wearing T-shirts and shorts,

As opposed to being barred from wearing a cross?

I'll give up the T-shirts and shorts, if it meant I could wear a cross.

quote: Public schools being religion-free is not a constitutional principle. However, it has a probably stronger influence on the French people than any constitutional article would.

Interesting. That goes contrary to what I have heard before. So it could be changed without altering the language of the constitution of France.

quote: The "zealots" am criticizing here aren't religious ones, for once. They are the zealots of the holier-than-thou principle, that school must be religion-free.

Ah, merci. Habituellement quand un communiste français marque quelqu'un un fanatique, ceci ne s'applique pas les athées.

quote: But the public display of religion does. In France, we strongly feel that religion is a private matter, that becomes social in the family and the Church, nowhere else.

What about the Christian who loves others? You are asking the impossible. For any believer his faith is a part of who he is, and to ask him to keep it in the closet will just make things worse.

quote: two opinionated students have a pointless argument with each other, while the rest of the class can't say one word), they do disturb the educational rythm.

Debates can be moderated.

quote: We do teach some things religious people said, wrote, painted etc. We just don't teach the spiritual aspect of it,

Do you try to cover up someone who is not a believer in the same matter?

Suppose someone were a communist, and you were studying his art. Wouldn't part of understanding the art come from knowing he was a communist?

	15-09-2004 13:36									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi As opposed to being barred from wearing a cross?

Are you aware that in France, you can wear any religious clothing in the whole territory of the country, but that of the public school? (provided it is compatibble with public decency laws,i.e. that your religious garb is not wandering stark naked)
I ask because from reading you, it looks like you believe it is forbidden to wear religious clothing everywhere on the territory, which is false.
In Iran, even if you're a tourist, you are required to have long sleeves and full trousers everywhere in public space.

quote: Interesting. That goes contrary to what I have heard before. So it could be changed without altering the language of the constitution of France.

Yep. The laicity of the Republic is a constitutional principle, and the State won't endorse a religion in particular, nor even religion in general. The specific brand of laicity at school is unconstitutional.

quote: Ah, merci. Habituellement quand un communiste français marque quelqu'un un fanatique, ceci ne s'applique pas les athées.

They're not necessarily atheists. Actually, quite a few are devoutly religious, like the Chirac family. They're "zealots" because they believe they stand up for a principle, when in fact they only apply a dogma without thinking about its meaning. You can be a "zealot" in non-spiritual matters you know

quote: What about the Christian who loves others? You are asking the impossible. For any believer his faith is a part of who he is, and to ask him to keep it in the closet will just make things worse.

There is no religious closet. It is common for one to mention their religion or lack thereof in their discussions with people. However, we may consider it quite vulgar when somebody drums his religious affiliation and shows it to everybody else with clothing or with any form of obvious display.

quote: Debates can be moderated.

I've never seen a highschool teacher (and very few university teachers, who 'moderate' debates all the time) do it successfully.

[q]Do you try to cover up someone who is not a believer in the same matter?

Suppose someone were a communist, and you were studying his art. Wouldn't part of understanding the art come from knowing he was a communist? [/QUOTE]
AFAIR my courses about Picasso, there was no mention of him being a Communist. We did study several of his paintings, learned the name of the different "periods" of his works etc though. Maybe his political engagement slipped at some point of the course, but I sure don't remember it.

	15-09-2004 14:06									#83
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: However, we may consider it quite vulgar when somebody drums his religious affiliation and shows it to everybody else with clothing or with any form of obvious display.

That's a shame.

I know a few people who are very open with their faith, so I guess I'm spoiled.

quote: I've never seen a highschool teacher (and very few university teachers, who 'moderate' debates all the time) do it successfully.

That's a shame. It's not that difficult to do. They should have all the teachers serve on a debating team so that they can have a chance to do that.

I guess that I've been lucky enough to have some very good teachers that have managed to moderate debates in class so that everyone gets to participate.

I see your point with Picasso. But what do you make of folks that do religious paintings, or art with an obvious religious theme?

	15-09-2004 14:16									#84
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Heresson: If Atheism is a religion, in terms of having a belief that there is no God, then it is not state sponsored. There is no indoctrination I'm aware of saying that God doesn't exist, which you claim is the sole principle. The seperate of church and state is about not having any religion, whether they believe in a God or not, involved in lawmaking. The French law against religious symbols in schools would also ban Atheist symbols, were there one.

To me, Atheism is not a religion, because it's not just a belief that there is no God, it's a lack of religion. I have no religion. I don't look at it as "I'm an Atheist, therefore I have no religion", I look at it from the other way - "I have no religion, and in having no religion, do not believe in any Gods, making me an Atheist". If I believed in a God, I would be religious, and since I do not agree with any religions, nor am religious myself, I do not believe in God. Therefore, my beliefs are that there is no religion, and I am classed as an Atheist because that involves a disbelief in God. Thus to me, Atheism cannot be a religion.

In your definition, is it possible to have no religion?

	15-09-2004 18:35									#85
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Heresson: If Atheism is a religion, in terms of having a belief that there is no God, then it is not state sponsored. There is no indoctrination I'm aware of saying that God doesn't exist, which you claim is the sole principle. The seperate of church and state is about not having any religion, whether they believe in a God or not, involved in lawmaking. The French law against religious symbols in schools would also ban Atheist symbols, were there one.

The problem is that there aren't. And creating a place where we should hide our God into wardrobe can be treated either as not treating religion seriously or as a persecution of religion as a whole.
The scarf does not hurt anybody (unless it's the family that forces to wearing it), and if a girl thinks God will her to wear it, it is dumb and cruel to force her to take it off, especially if she wears it everywhere else and is not used to being seen half-naked, as she may understand it.
Additionally, a stress caused by such situation my be harmful to her school performance

	16-09-2004 11:08									#86
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Heresson The problem is that there aren't.

Why is that a problem.

After that said, do you know of the Darwin Fish?

	16-09-2004 15:38									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

No

	16-09-2004 16:07									#88
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Heresson The problem is that there aren't.

That's not a problem, that's just because it isn't a religion. You choose to have symbols, we choose not to. if we'd chosen to have them,as we do in some senses, they would not be allowed in French schools.

quote: Originally posted by Heresson And creating a place where we should hide our God into wardrobe can be treated either as not treating religion seriously or as a persecution of religion as a whole.

Just as atheists should hide their atheism, in terms of symbols. Religion does not have a place in school, according to the French government. In response to your thread title, no, religion does not have rights. All rights are granted by man, and thus, if the country has decided that religion has no place in schools, religion does not have rights in schools. All rights are simply granted by man, whether about religion or not. So as far as natural rights, not only does religion not have any, neither to we.

quote: Originally posted by Heresson The scarf does not hurt anybody (unless it's the family that forces to wearing it), and if a girl thinks God will her to wear it, it is dumb and cruel to force her to take it off, especially if she wears it everywhere else and is not used to being seen half-naked, as she may understand it.

However it is up to the French government to decide French law. They decided to do this as they believe it is harmful for her to be wearing that. If they decided you have to wear a uniform, then you have to wear it.

	16-09-2004 17:18									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: All rights are granted by man, and thus, if the country has decided that religion has no place in schools, religion does not have rights in schools. All rights are simply granted by man, whether about religion or not. So as far as natural rights, not only does religion not have any, neither to we.

Not strictly so. At the moment of an individual, they have free will, and so a state can choose to recognise that by implimenting the consequent right of freedom of expression and association. Note that this is still not a natural right, but a consequence of our free state, so I suppose I might term it a contextual or consequential right.

In effect, they have that right, but the state is denying it.

	16-09-2004 17:20									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Not strictly so. At the moment of an individual, they have free will, and so a state can choose to recognise that by implimenting the consequent right of freedom of expression and association. Note that this is still not a natural right, but a consequence of our free state, so I suppose I might term it a contextual or consequential right. In effect, they have that right, but the state is denying it.

So the state can choose to impliment it or not, but it is stil there? What, prey tell, is an unimplimented right? Freedom of expression is something granted by the government, whatever that government is.