France: What the hell is wrong over there?

[Serious Paul]

Okay here in the US we're accussed of all sorts of stuff, and sure we're likely to be guilt of at least half of it. But what the hell is wrong with France?

I mean do they think they'll make their country safer doing this?

[Elldren]

Fun. Watch as France attempts to preserve its secular democratic roots by destroying the very pillars of Liberty and Equality upon which it is built. Brilliant move!

[mrmooky]

Because we don't have that many French members, I'll give their likely defense on France's behalf:

Chirac is an idiot and we only voted for him because it was either him or that fascist asshat Le Pen. Rest assured we'll elect the Socialist Party next term, and they'll be relatively more enlightened on this issue.

[Johnny the Bull]

Fun. Watch as France attempts to preserve its secular democratic roots by destroying the very pillars of Liberty and Equality upon which it is built. Brilliant move!

France is removing, quite rightly IMO, all religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam - from public life.

[ak404]

The idea, Paul, is that the three major religions in France are causing schisms in France's society; France's has always had a problem trying to get all three religions and cultures to get along in their nation, and for the sake of security, it's just easier to wipe it all out than create a meaningful discourse amongst their three very different communties. And really, given a choice between allowing all religions and cultures to be displayed and flourished and risking internal clashes or wiping out all traces of religion and different cultures from daily life and setting oneself down a clearly set road with a strong yet unspoken Catholic heritage that narowly defines what it is to be 'French' while at the same time squashing all dissenting views, religions, and cultures as completely detrimental to the stability of one's nation and status quo, which would you take?

After all, America ain't the only place loaded with people who hate Jews, Arabs, Christians, and foreigners; since the 1950s, France has been seen as the 'other safe haven' for those who feel displaced from their origins. It's one of the top ten in Europe for immigrants, and well, that tends to have its effect on the French, who can be just as xenophobic, militaristic, and money-grubbing as the best American. Again, all those different cultures in a single country, and only one of them is French - what're ya gonna do?

Of course, I think they're fucking morons for even attempting it, but hey, nice try on the government's attempt to try defining "Frenchness" for its citizenry.

[DV8]

Fun. Watch as France attempts to preserve its secular democratic roots by destroying the very pillars of Liberty and Equality upon which it is built. Brilliant move!

France is removing, quite rightly IMO, all religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam - from public life.

I think they're taking it a step too far, but I applaud the effort. What Mustafa Kemal Ataturk managed to do in Turkey - seperating church and state by banning headscarfs and other religious apparel from people who held a public office - is what the French are now trying to emulate. However, instead of stopping where Ataturk stopped, they're taking it one step further by removing it from public life entirely, and that fucks with the right to practice your religion.

[Johnny the Bull]

Fun. Watch as France attempts to preserve its secular democratic roots by destroying the very pillars of Liberty and Equality upon which it is built. Brilliant move!

France is removing, quite rightly IMO, all religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam - from public life.

I think they're taking it a step too far, but I applaud the effort. What Mustafa Kemal Ataturk managed to do in Turkey - seperating church and state by banning headscarfs and other religious apparel from people who held a public office - is what the French are now trying to emulate. However, instead of stopping where Ataturk stopped, they're taking it one step further by removing it from public life entirely, and that fucks with the right to practice your religion.

Legally, its a right that should be enforced. Personally, I think religion in its entirety should be outlawed, so I don't shed a tear for those it hurts in France.

[Maelwys]

I think they're taking it a step too far, but I applaud the effort. What Mustafa Kemal Ataturk managed to do in Turkey - seperating church and state by banning headscarfs and other religious apparel from people who held a public office - is what the French are now trying to emulate. However, instead of stopping where Ataturk stopped, they're taking it one step further by removing it from public life entirely, and that fucks with the right to practice your religion.

Well, it fucks with your right to practice your religion in a public place. It's sort of different.

[DV8]

I think they're taking it a step too far, but I applaud the effort. What Mustafa Kemal Ataturk managed to do in Turkey - seperating church and state by banning headscarfs and other religious apparel from people who held a public office - is what the French are now trying to emulate. However, instead of stopping where Ataturk stopped, they're taking it one step further by removing it from public life entirely, and that fucks with the right to practice your religion.

Well, it fucks with your right to practice your religion in a public place. It's sort of different.

Not if your religions prescribe you wear a keppel, scarf, or in the Sikh's case, a turban, sash and ceremonial dagger in public as well as in private.

[Maelwys]

And why should one's religious beliefs override the rules that govern everyone else? Religious beliefs should not be used to trump laws.

[TheScamp]

So no one should be able to wear hats?

[3278]

And why should one's religious beliefs override the rules that govern everyone else?

From the point of view of a religious person, religion answers to a higher authority than government. It is quite logical for them to believe that it is right to follow the precepts of their faith over purely man-made laws.

[Maelwys]

And why should one's religious beliefs override the rules that govern everyone else?

From the point of view of a religious person, religion answers to a higher authority than government. It is quite logical for them to believe that it is right to follow the precepts of their faith over purely man-made laws.

Of course, they'd be quite wrong The Pope or High Iman or whatever can declare that all redheads are evil and should be stoned where they stand, but I guarantee you that a government somewhere would object, and would be right to.

And Scamp, dunno about your school, but in the schools around here, no, you aren't allowed to wear hats.

[TheScamp]

And Scamp, dunno about your school, but in the schools around here, no, you aren't allowed to wear hats.

"No hats at all" is very different from "only these hats which have religious significance."

And no, there was no school-wide prohibition of hats when I was in school.

[Ancient History]

Of course, they'd be quite wrong The Pope or High Iman or whatever can declare that all redheads are evil and should be stoned where they stand...

Hey now, some of us resemble that remark!

[Maelwys]

So no one should be able to wear hats?

So to solve this problem all french schools should institute rules banning the wearing of any head apparel. A work around where they're not banning due to religious reasons, just distraction reasons.

[3278]

I think there's something to be said for honesty in legislation. If you have to hide the reasons for your laws in order to make them palatable, it's quite likely there's either something very wrong with the proposed law, or that it would be unpopular with a large segment of your population. Any nation with pretentions toward democracy should closely consider any law which would be so widely disapproved of.

I think the French law is ridiculous. Religion is a right like any other, and the expression of that right should be allowed. While I do not believe religion has a place in government, it is precisely /for/ that reason that I believe the government should not legislate religious expression unless it poses a clear and present danger to the nation. Removing children from school for remaining true to the principles under which they live their lives - however false or absurd I may personally find those principles - is absurd and harmful.

Religious freedom is not disallowing everything religious, but rather allowing everything religious, equally, and without predjudice.

[3278]

For traditional Sikhs, external appearance is sacred, and men and boys who practice the faith wear turbans to cover their unshorn hair.

I think this is ironic, since the covering of the loins occurs for the same reasons, also religious in nature, but much older. Thus, if I were to go pantsless in accord with the French law, I'd likely get in trouble, even though the source of the custom is the same.

[Wounded Ronin]

Perhaps this article is taken out of context? Head-scarves has been a controversy in France for many years now. "L'affaire foulard" is hardly a new thing at all.

It has to do with separation of church and state. In french schools (state institutions) you can't be showing religious objects. The "foulard" was considered a religious object, so they tried to ban them from schools.



It's easy to slam another country when you haven't lived there and understood the history that lead to things being the way they are....

Sometimes I get so tired of people slamming the French. It's like some lame intellectually lazy fad because you know that on the whole most people will agree with you while writing the French off as arrogant.

N.B., I'm not French. But as I said, I just think that French-bashing gets lame.

[TheScamp]

Thank god we don't have to learn.

[3278]

Perhaps this article is taken out of context? Head-scarves has been a controversy in France for many years now. "L'affaire foulard" is hardly a new thing at all.

It has to do with separation of church and state. In french schools (state institutions) you can't be showing religious objects. The "foulard" was considered a religious object, so they tried to ban them from schools.

It's easy to slam another country when you haven't lived there and understood the history that lead to things being the way they are....

It's pretty easy even then, frankly, particularly when it comes to the French. I live in the US, and I understand its history [more or less], and I find it quite easy to slam the United States.

You know, I didn't see anyone in here slamming the French, nor did I see anyone speaking from a point of ignorance; everyone displayed knowledge of this issue as being one having to do with separation of church and state. I just don't understand your reply.

[Elldren]

And why should one's religious beliefs override the rules that govern everyone else? Religious beliefs should not be used to trump laws.

Well, in a liberal democratic society built upon freedom, equality, and brotherhood, Laws should not be used to trump religious beliefs. Whoops.

What is happening is an attempt to create a stronger national image by outlawing the display of religion in government, and extending that throughout all government institutions (like schools). Unfortunately, this is likely to have the very opposite intended effect. Yes, they are trying to strengthen the seperation of religion from matters of the state, but by doing so they are weakening the cohesion of the state as a whole and kicking the legs out from under its founding principles. An understandable move, but very, very misperceived.

The net effect is a weaker French state than before, with internal dissidence rising over the issue. Not to say that it wasn't earlier, but this move does absolutely nothing to quell it.

[FlakJacket]

So what happens when religion attempts tp trample on the aforementioned freedom, equality, and brotherhood?

[Elldren]

So what happens when religion attempts tp trample on the aforementioned freedom, equality, and brotherhood?

It can't.

[Wounded Ronin]

Perhaps this article is taken out of context? Head-scarves has been a controversy in France for many years now. "L'affaire foulard" is hardly a new thing at all.

It has to do with separation of church and state. In french schools (state institutions) you can't be showing religious objects. The "foulard" was considered a religious object, so they tried to ban them from schools.

It's easy to slam another country when you haven't lived there and understood the history that lead to things being the way they are....

It's pretty easy even then, frankly, particularly when it comes to the French. I live in the US, and I understand its history [more or less], and I find it quite easy to slam the United States.

You know, I didn't see anyone in here slamming the French, nor did I see anyone speaking from a point of ignorance; everyone displayed knowledge of this issue as being one having to do with separation of church and state. I just don't understand your reply.

Oh, I was just ranting.

[3278]

So what happens when religion attempts tp trample on the aforementioned freedom, equality, and brotherhood?

It can't.

I don't know about you, but I live in America, where it does, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Certainly, religion has managed to suppress freedom, equality, and brotherhood in nearly every other nation I can think of, and succeeded, for the most part, for the better portion of the history of, say, for instance, all of Europe. [And Asia. And the Americas.]

[mrmooky]

It's worth pointing out here that your right to wear a headscarf in a French school is not necessarily being trampled on, because these laws only apply in the public system. Disgruntled parents can always send their kids to the local religious school instead, where they can express their religious beliefs to their hearts' content.

That said, if the government's goal is to ease the tension between different religions, then a policy whose net effect is more children in religious schools, is not really a good idea.

[Anguirel]

I'd just like to point out that last time I checked, the Islamic faith included some side notes on being allowed to ignore various holy strictures where local law contravened them. They were, of course, supposed to appeal such laws and attempt to have them repealed or altered, but from what I recall there's nothing in the Islamic faith barring these people from complying as long as it is the law and is not one of the pillars of the faith (like the bowing to Mecca 5 times a day, which can also be bent on some occasions).

[Serious Paul]

Intresting.

[Elldren]

So what happens when religion attempts tp trample on the aforementioned freedom, equality, and brotherhood?

It can't.

I don't know about you, but I live in America, where it does, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Certainly, religion has managed to suppress freedom, equality, and brotherhood in nearly every other nation I can think of, and succeeded, for the most part, for the better portion of the history of, say, for instance, all of Europe. [And Asia. And the Americas.]

It only does because the government allows it to. If the government doesn't want to, it can prevent it from doing so, because in every case the state has the last word. It doesn't matter who you pray to, the State is God.

[Serious Paul]

Intresting. But I am not sure if thats true. All governments are made up of people, who hold various religous beliefs.

[Elldren]

Intresting. But I am not sure if thats true. All governments are made up of people, who hold various religous beliefs.

Only governments made up of people holding religious beliefs. Not all governments are made up strictly of people, and not all of those people have real religious convictions.

Personally, I believe that the fewer people and fewer religious convictions in government, the better.

[Serious Paul]

But in America, the government itself was founded with some basic religous precepts in mind-not completely mind you, but some. I don't disgaree with your basic idea that fewer people should be religous in government, but how do you accomplish that?

I'd be willing to bet more people in the actual US government were religous than the average citizens.

[mrmooky]

Not all governments are made up strictly of people

Not sure I understand what you mean by this. But I can think of a few governments comprised entirely (or almost entirely) of people with no religious beliefs. The Soviet Union was one such case.

[Elldren]

I don't disgaree with your basic idea that fewer people should be religous in government, but how do you accomplish that?

Oh, quite simple, really. You remove them, by force if necessary. Now building up the necessary force, or, in a democratic republic like the U.S., the necessary national consensus may be difficult, but once you have that it's really something that occurs on its own.

[3278]

It can't.

I don't know about you, but I live in America, where it does, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Certainly, religion has managed to suppress freedom, equality, and brotherhood in nearly every other nation I can think of, and succeeded, for the most part, for the better portion of the history of, say, for instance, all of Europe. [And Asia. And the Americas.]

It only does because the government allows it to. If the government doesn't want to, it can prevent it from doing so, because in every case the state has the last word. It doesn't matter who you pray to, the State is God.

This is a bizarre stance. I'm not certain from where you get the impression that the government has absolute control over the state, but it's quite wrong. Government doesn't touch every moment of our waking lives. Religion can and does sneak in the backdoor, and for that matter, just walks through the front!

Your position is that religion cannot suppress freedom, equality, and brotherhood unless the government allows it. This is self-evidently untrue, since the government cannot and does not hold absolute control over the populace, much less over religion. The government makes and enforces laws, and that's about as far as their control goes. Cops will not break down the doors of churches when they start preaching intolerance, and they shouldn't be able to. Freedom is freedom, not just allowing the sort of religion you like, and the sort of behavior you like.

I don't disgaree with your basic idea that fewer people should be religous in government, but how do you accomplish that?

Oh, quite simple, really. You remove them, by force if necessary.

You're talking about building a nation of liberty, equality, and fraternity by forcefully removing anyone in government who has a religious belief. That's completely and utterly mad. You know, I don't like religion, religions, or the people who believe in them, but I do like freedom, and that means the freedom of people who don't agree with me, too. That's how I manage my freedom: by sacrificing some of it to allow others their freedom. What you're talking about is fascist militant anti-theism, and that will never bring about freedom, equality, or brotherhood.

[MooCow]

The Soviet Union was one such case.

Actually, the Soviet Union was comprised of government officials who claimed not to have any religion because it was profitable for them to say so. They then went home and got out the bible hidden under the floor boards.

[mrmooky]

The Soviet Union was one such case.

Actually, the Soviet Union was comprised of government officials who claimed not to have any religion because it was profitable for them to say so. They then went home and got out the bible hidden under the floor boards.

When I say "the government", I'm talking about the highest level thereof, who were the ones enforcing the atheism laws. Anyway, point being, for this law to have been enforced at all, a lot of people in government must have not held religious beliefs.

[Elldren]

32: Sorry if I'm a bit unclear, you are inferring a number of things I have not stated that are quite bizarre. You are quite right that governments often do not have absolute control because they allow freedoms. This is patently obvious. I am only stating that should the government suddenly remove those freedoms (highly unlikely, but stick with me) then there is nothing that religion can effectively do about it. The government does not hold absolute contro over its populacel only because it chooses not to.

Of course, I am personifying an entity mostly composed of decisions made by people now long dead. Constitutional governments tend to have most of their important decisions set in stone from the get-go; I'm just trying to phrase my views in a way that applies to all governments.

As far as the statement on force: of course that wouldn't be the best course of action for a government founded upon guiding principles of freedom (one of the worst, as you point out), but it's an available course of action nonetheless, and apparently the one France is on the course to taking.

edit: forgot one thing: All governments have absolute control over the state, otherwise it's not really a state. Defining state as an entity consisting of territory with a permanent population and a government that can enter into relations with other states.
Governments may choose to allow freedoms to the populace, but they are still sovereign and have final say on what precisely may or may not be done by their people.

[Sock_Monkey]

Personally I say all the power to the French. If they can remove all sorts of the idiocy that goes along with religious beliefs from the public then by all means.

Take a look what happens when you have a government like the Canadian one which bends over backwards to satisfy all sorts of religious groups. The best example I can give is probably one of Canada's national symbols - The Mountie. It took one sikh to have the mountie's drees uniform changed - over an individual's religious beliefs. Now its OK for a turban to replace the standard hat and a sash to replace the uniform's belt. Where does this stuff end? In Canada caving in to the minority is just the SOP - why do you think we have all these problems with the sepratists? Its really scary how much taxpayer money just gets wasted on this crap. Ironically Its the French portion of Canada - Quebec - whose totalitarian language laws repress minorities within a national minority.

But if you're going to go all out and quash someting like this you have to go all the way - no exceptions - the minute you work in a little bit of leeway in the practice - except in schools, except for children, etc. then you leave the door open for all sorts of legal problems. Lastly, one would assume that since France still is technically a democracy this legislation is probably somewhat the will of the majority. If you don't like what that portends then move somewhere else. Living somewhere, and reaping all the benefits there of - its education system, legal system, heathcare, etc - is a privelage - its not a right.

[Salvation122]

I think they're taking it a step too far, but I applaud the effort. What Mustafa Kemal Ataturk managed to do in Turkey - seperating church and state by banning headscarfs and other religious apparel from people who held a public office - is what the French are now trying to emulate. However, instead of stopping where Ataturk stopped, they're taking it one step further by removing it from public life entirely, and that fucks with the right to practice your religion.

Well, it fucks with your right to practice your religion in a public place. It's sort of different.

Not substantialy.

[Sock_Monkey]

When is it a right to practice religion in a public place? Isn't that what churches, mosques and synagogues are for? I'm pretty sure tha local law enforcement would have something to say I had a sermon in a local playground. The fact that the jehovah's get away with campaigning door to door irritates me. Its like in Alabama - putting up the ten commandments on the court house. Superintendent Chalmers says it best - "God has no place within these walls!

[3278]

I am only stating that should the government suddenly remove those freedoms (highly unlikely, but stick with me) then there is nothing that religion can effectively do about it. The government does not hold absolute contro over its populacel only because it chooses not to.

This is also simply untrue. There are a number of governments which have tried - some of them for decades - to have absolute control of the populace, and none have ever succeeded. The government simply cannot control all things or all people. No government can, no matter how hard it tries.

edit: forgot one thing: All governments have absolute control over the state, otherwise it's not really a state. Defining state as an entity consisting of territory with a permanent population and a government that can enter into relations with other states.

I would define a state roughly that way, and I see nothing in that definition which requires "absolute control." Control, yes, but it is never anything even approaching absolute.

Governments may choose to allow freedoms to the populace, but they are still sovereign and have final say on what precisely may or may not be done by their people.

Sometimes, they try. But you can outlaw smoking all you want, and people will still smoke. Control, but not absolute. You can outlaw religion all you want, but people will still worship. Control, but not absolute.

[3278]

Personally I say all the power to the French. If they can remove all sorts of the idiocy that goes along with religious beliefs from the public then by all means.

Weariong a cross isn't what I'd call idiocy, and I'm pretty anti-religion. France isn't removing religion, or even expression of religion, but only worn items of religion. That doesn't really remove the idiocy.

Now its OK for a turban to replace the standard hat and a sash to replace the uniform's belt. Where does this stuff end?

It shouldn't ever end. You think a sikh shouldn't be allowed to wear a turban and be a Mounty, because he's not wearing the uniform, but what you don't seem to care about is that this is the sikh's firmly held belief. If you believed murder was wrong, but were required to murder someone to be a Mounty, don't you think it'd be fair for you to object? This isn't an item of clothing for him, but rather a holy duty. It'd be like you having to walk around with your privates in public; I doubt you'd do that, and I hardly believe he should be required to.

The answer to your question is, this stuff shouldn't end. Freedom shouldn't have limits, unless it threatens the state or the populace, and turbans instead of funny hats don't do either.

When is it a right to practice religion in a public place? Isn't that what churches, mosques and synagogues are for?

Wow. This just strikes me as incredibly ignorant. Look, I'm not religious, but I recognize that some people are, and that their belief system says god doesn't end at the church doors. Christianity is supposed to be everyday, all day, not just in private.

Maybe you don't like religious freedom. I don't understand why, but maybe that's your thing. I don't like religions, but I feel that the best way to safeguard my freedom to do what I choose is to not restrict the freedoms of others. How would you like it if the religious folks said you could only roleplay in basements, or could only use the internet at the library? That would be ridiculous. Asking them to defile their most strongly-held beliefs about propriety for no apparent reason - except maybe lower taxes, and less personal irritation - is at least as ridiculous.

I just don't understand when I became the voice of religious tolerance. That's absurd.

[Sock_Monkey]

That's not the point, I'm trying to get at. We all have the privelage of living in a society that is tolerant of public displays of one's religious beliefs. Like I say, though, it isn't a right, and certainly not one to be abused. Just like being a mountie its not a right someone has. If you want to be one, then you must adhere to the requirements. Its for you to decide - Is being a sikh more important or is being a mountie? I'll put this in other terms for you - I used to have a job that required me to be clean shaven - no exceptions - why? Because I had to wear a SCOTT pack most of the time doing it. Now if my religious beliefs said that I wasn't supposed to shave - like a sikh - why should I be absolved of a requirement? If I didn't want to shave it would be find another job - end of story. Sikhs are a special case here in Canada due to their head gear - they've fought Canadian Legion rules regarding wearing hats and even disputing helmet laws in various places. Once again these things are privelages - not rights.

As per the worn items of religion, like I say if you're going to do it go all the way. That way there's no disputing the law. The minute you leave in some bit about someone being able to wear a crucafix or any other item no matter how small - you have to let everything else in.

Now there's a fine line here with religious freedoms and public places - when does one person's religious beliefs impunge on anothers? Say if I decide to hold public celebration of say Christmas or Halloween etc. How far does it go? Is my singing of Christmas carols in public infringing on your right to peace and quiet? If I'm a sikh does that let me still carry daggers on board airplanes?

[Sock_Monkey]

I was interrupted...

What France is trying to do is really simple - though I doubt they'll succeed - is send a message to everyone what is important to France is that being French comes first. Most schools don't allow gang regalia in them, just as we don't allow people to march around wearing red armbands with swastikas on them. When someone decides that they need to make an appearance change to present to others what religion they are its like holding up your flag and saying "I'm on this team" Why is it necessary? If I happen to be a strong believer in whatever faith why would I feel a need to proclaim it to the world? One might say I then would have pride[/i] in my religion and therefore if I am christian am therefore sinning... but that's another discussion. What it amounts to is you have people in your country who have a much stronger alliegance to something else than that nation - which is that problem I've mentioned with Canada. Our government won't do anything anymore that might offend or alienate one of the infinite amount of cultures or beliefs that reside within the country - consequently we've become a whining lay-about on the world stage. Why? People who have come to this country are encouraged to maintain their cultural and religious belief over and above what it might mean to be Canadian. And don't just think I'm singling out Sikh or those of the muslim faith here - though they might be the most visible - but anyone it seems anymore that live here. People proclaim themselves Swedish-Canadians or Croatian-Canadians or Iraqi-Canadians. It should be the other way around. Like I said - you come to a place to live - if you want to live there you are bound by that place's rules - you follow the laws, you pay the taxes and as a reward you get to reap the benefits of living there - You get its public services, you get the benefits of its law and order, and most of the time, its peace. No one is ever forced to move here or there - Just like no one is ever forced to be a mounty - that's a choice you make - and the beauty of living here. If you wanted to have things the same as where you left - then go back there.

All the power to them. In France if the rule is being french should come before any other commitments you might have - including religious - so be it. If your religion is more important to you than being french, no one is saying you have to stay.

Religious freedom is a hokey term to toss around. If I believe in something truly and faithfully, no one can ever take that away from me. If you really believe that not being able to wear your turban or crucafix takes that away from you then you're missing the point.

[Wounded Ronin]

Besides, like I said earlier, France's policy of no religious displays in the public schools is a long standing one. Everyone concerned was forewarned because of the same issue coming up really big and angry a number of years ago. If it's going to be an issue, don't send your kid to the public school, since you already know what's going to happen.

[Serious Paul]

Like I say, though, it isn't a right, and certainly not one to be abused.

Thats absolutely not true. Thats exactly what the Bill of Rights guarentees you. You absolutely have the right to assemble in public, irregardless of your message. Int he United States of America you absolutely have the right to practice your religion publicly.

I may not like religion, I may not enjoy religion, I may not even want it to exsist-but I most certainly agree with 3278.

We all have the privelage of living in a society that is tolerant of public displays of one's religious beliefs.

While its certainly a nice privilege to live in the United States of America, once you do live here Religion is a right guarenteed by the Constitution. Same for public assembly.

Now I agree that certain groups have the right to limit religous expression for various reasons-your mountie example while silly, fits the bill. The Military, Police and LAw Enforcement specifically come to mind. A few other areas, and a few other circumstances.

Aren't you a woman? So the SCOTT Air pack requirements didn't really apply to you did they? Unless you're wearing it way different than I am when I use it. We also require a percentage of our employees to be SCOTT air pack qualified, but exemptions are available for various reasons including religous. We don't have any applicants who have to use religion as a reason as our field rarely attracts those sort of people, but a lot-not all I admit-of jobs have exemptions.A lot of employers are willing to work with their employees in this arena.

That way there's no disputing the law.

Except thats how new laws are made. For instance the civil rights legislation of the sixties. Sometimes challenging bad laws is a good thing.

What France is trying to do is really simple - though I doubt they'll succeed - is send a message to everyone what is important to France is that being French comes first.

A message that is absurd, and almost certainly not true for a lot of French citizens.

Most schools don't allow gang regalia in them, just as we don't allow people to march around wearing red armbands with swastikas on them. When someone decides that they need to make an appearance change to present to others what religion they are its like holding up your flag and saying "I'm on this team"

I always think I hate religion alot. Then I come here. It always amazes me how easily people here can compare religion to gangs, and organized crime.

Like I said - you come to a place to live - if you want to live there you are bound by that place's rules - you follow the laws, you pay the taxes and as a reward you get to reap the benefits of living there - You get its public services, you get the benefits of its law and order, and most of the time, its peace.

And under the first Amendment, the freedom, absolute freedom, to practice your religion. To speak freely. To think freely.

The thought police have invaded this nation, and its getting easier for me to see why.

[Elldren]

This is also simply untrue. There are a number of governments which have tried - some of them for decades - to have absolute control of the populace, and none have ever succeeded. The government simply cannot control all things or all people. No government can, no matter how hard it tries.

I don't believe this to be true. I believe that no government that has had the means of enforcement has tried. In the presence of proper enforcement, absolute control is possible given the will to enforce it.

[3278]

We all have the privelage of living in a society that is tolerant of public displays of one's religious beliefs. Like I say, though, it isn't a right, and certainly not one to be abused.

I strongly disagree. I believe it not only /is/ a right, but, even if it were not, that it should be.

Just like being a mountie its not a right someone has. If you want to be one, then you must adhere to the requirements.

I think that's a valid point. I also don't think it'd be particularly fair to exclude all sikhs from being Mounties because of a headgear requirement, nor particularly desirable. Certainly a tough issue, unless, of course, you find the headgear requirement unnecessary, as I do.

I'll put this in other terms for you - I used to have a job that required me to be clean shaven - no exceptions - why? Because I had to wear a SCOTT pack most of the time doing it. Now if my religious beliefs said that I wasn't supposed to shave - like a sikh - why should I be absolved of a requirement?

Because if you don't wear a SCOTT pack, you'll die. Same with the sikh. Seems like a clear-cut issue to me. Does a Mountie's headgear prevent death or injury?

As per the worn items of religion, like I say if you're going to do it go all the way. That way there's no disputing the law. The minute you leave in some bit about someone being able to wear a crucafix or any other item no matter how small - you have to let everything else in.

Well, uh, yes. That's called "freedom." I like it. Now, caveats must be included, about clear and present danger to the state or its populace, but with those exceptions in mind, the right to wear a cross is how wiccans get the right to wear a pentagram. Allowing others their own freedom is what allows us all to have our freedom.

Now there's a fine line here with religious freedoms and public places - when does one person's religious beliefs impunge on anothers?

I say when it presents a clear and present danger to the state and its populace, and not really any sooner.

Say if I decide to hold public celebration of say Christmas or Halloween etc. How far does it go? Is my singing of Christmas carols in public infringing on your right to peace and quiet? If I'm a sikh does that let me still carry daggers on board airplanes?

You should be able to carol until you're keeping people awake. Caroling isn't so loud or offensively pitched as to present danger or even more than annoyance, so it should be allowed. A sikh should not be allowed to carry a dagger on an airplane, because it presents a clear and present danger to the other passengers.

What France is trying to do is really simple - though I doubt they'll succeed - is send a message to everyone what is important to France is that being French comes first.

Hmm. I thought they were trying to eliminate symbols of female oppression, and extending the legislation to include everything just so they didn't look like assholes.

Most schools don't allow gang regalia in them, just as we don't allow people to march around wearing red armbands with swastikas on them.

Interesting comparison. You do understand that religious symbols like the turban and the headscarf, as well as the cross and so on, exist for completely different reasons that gang colors, correct?

I think the comparison is invalid. The elimination of gang colors from public schools is a safety measure, and meets the "clear and present danger" requirement I mentioned earlier. [A requirement purely of my own creation; I'm not presenting this as fact, but only as my opinion of what I think is right, and how it contrasts with your own.] Swastikas? Wear the hell out of them. Freedom of expression isn't just for people whose opinions we like. Now, if the wearing of swastikas begins to present a danger, the issue must be re-examined.

It's worth noting that we do, indeed, allow people to walk around wearing red armbands with swastikas on them. [Not so sure about Canada.] As we should.

Why is it necessary? If I happen to be a strong believer in whatever faith why would I feel a need to proclaim it to the world?

Please understand these people wear these symbols when they're alone, and don't do it - as a rule - to show off their religion like it were a gang. For someone with such strong feelings about religion, it doesn't seem like you know that much about it, or the people who practice it. I don't mean that as an insult, merely as a suggestion that if you think sikhs wear turbans to "put their sets in the air," you might consider spending more time analyzing their actions from their own point of view, and not your own.

People proclaim themselves Swedish-Canadians or Croatian-Canadians or Iraqi-Canadians. It should be the other way around.

For you, maybe. For many people, a country is a place to live, not a sacred oath you take to hold all other nations as secondary.

In France if the rule is being french should come before any other commitments you might have - including religious - so be it. If your religion is more important to you than being french, no one is saying you have to stay.

"Look, nigger, your place is at the back of the bus. If you don't like it, go back to Africa."

If you really believe that not being able to wear your turban or crucafix takes that away from you then you're missing the point.

Please spend a day with your genitals hanging out and tell me the sikh missed the point. Perhaps then you'll realize that it's /his/ point you missed.