[Adrien]

Secularity within the state apparatus and particularly the eduction is on everybody's lips these days in France after the case of two girls expelled from school for wearing big headscarves launched a national debate.

Debate which is now officially summed up as a report of members of the Senate or the Constitutional Council (i now can't remember) released yesterday to the public. This text proposes to clearly and officially forbid the use of "patent, fit to be seen" religious signs: big crosses, kippas and headscarves in schools or the administration. And also that a law forbidding muslim female patients to refuse to be cured, or to have her children cured, in hospitals by a man.

It also adds that the Kippour and Aid el-kébir should be bank holidays for schools. And that muslim and jewish employees could swap christian holidays for theirs in their companies.

If i totally support the first and second points, the third is making one step backward; there are several visions of "secularity", but more than supporting every religion, the state should be separated from all of them: we should thus suppress the religious bank holidays altogether and institute others for for instance the creation of the assembly, the revolution, the proclaimation of the first Republic, etc.

What do you think of these measures, good idea to follow or not?

[Ásatrúar]

Make a distinction: Are we talking of citizens or people who work for the government? The state should always remain neutral in religious matters, this means anyone getting a pay from the state shouldn't be wearing religious symbols while working. Private citizens should be able to wear any religious symbol they like, I consider this a free speech issue. Students and Children are still citizens and have free speech. A student doesn't represent the school or state, they merely attend a state institution. Though when I was in school, we had a no hat policy so I am sure that headscarf would've had to go.
On the hospital issue, I am split down the middle. A person has the right to choose when they want to die, I agree with euthenasia. Though if a person refuses to get medical attention for religious reasons (or whatever), I question their sanity.
Kippour and Aid el-kébir? I am assuming these are holidays of significance? I am strongly agianst state holidays, and public workers getting off on that day. Most people use the holidays as an excuse not to work at all. Not to mention my previous point on that the state should remain totally secular. If not, I want all my religious pagan holy days and festivals off!!

[enLight]

The state should always remain neutral in religious matters, this means anyone getting a pay from the state shouldn't be wearing religious symbols while working. Private citizens should be able to wear any religious symbol they like, I consider this a free speech issue.

Well I'm not going to say much, since Asatruar has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I will add this though: Employees of the state (teachers in this case) should also be able to wear religious apparel, granted that they do not promote or force their religious beliefs upon their students or coworkers.

Just because someone wants to be a teacher doesn't mean they have to subordinate their personal beliefs to political correctness.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Secularity, is this a step in the right direction?

Speaking in term of the US, I think not. Considering the skyrocketing levels of illegitamat chidren, broken homes, drug abusers, teen prostitution, failing education, the amounts of sex, drugs and violence on TV, and pretty much a disregard for decency and accountability is turning this country into a shithole. Now i've never been one to support organized religion, but these problems, which seemed to really gain steam about half a century ago, seem to coincide with americans losing their religion.

In short, I believe the secularists are tearing this country apart piece by piece. The transformation has been slow but the effects are ever present.

[Truth-a-naut]

You think all those are the result of losing religion?
In reality its the failure of religion, its imploding.

We are not losing our religion, the theory in regards to religion is flawed.

[Adrien]

You're right Asatruar, i should have precised that the ban of "patent" religious signs is for students, but of course the proposal of law to ban them for the employees of the states concerns the teachers too.

Now private citizens are able to do whatever they want in the street or in their houses, but when they are in one of the state's institutions they must abide by its law of secularity. And this applies to students because they are like the workers and employees of the school and thus of the state.

Plus school are a place for everybody, and in which we must put everybody at the same level, a level of equality reached through republican values, including secularity.

Most people use the holidays as an excuse not to work at all.

Well if we were to institute bank holidays based on the state's special dates, i would expect the people not to work at all and take a good time, while at the same time realizing what the topic of this holiday means as far as their life of citizen is concerned.

[Adrien]

Speaking in term of the US, I think not.{...}

That's interesting JT. I think like Goldstein that the problems you are evoking have nothing to do with the secularisation of the state but with a plain mismanagement of its affairs.

The aim of secularisation is to proove that the moral values we need -and only those- are not a result of religion but of human nature, of something people have without having to be religious (most of the time the moral values of the church even contradict the needed moral values we should have). It's the duty of the state, in its march towards *progress*, to do that.

But you can't just blow away the references of the people without replacing them with others; secularisation must be a followed work.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You think all those are the result of losing religion?
In reality its the failure of religion, its imploding.

We are not losing our religion, the theory in regards to religion is flawed.

OK please help me out in understanding this then. The US has been turning into a secularist state since at least the 60's, and since the sixties, this country has turned into more of a shithole. How is this that failure of religion has caused these problems, aside from the fact that it has disappeared from the landscape?

[Truth-a-naut]

First off.

To be blunt, if religion can fix the problems, why doesn't God come down here and fix it?

You can't fix those problems by spending a couple of hours a day in a church, ideals don't fail spontaniously; they fail because they are decadent and useless.

We don't need religion, religion needs you.

[Ásatrúar]

Considering the skyrocketing levels of illegitamat chidren, broken homes, drug abusers, teen prostitution, failing education, the amounts of sex, drugs and violence on TV, and pretty much a disregard for decency and accountability is turning this country into a shithole.

I really doubt that has anything to do with secularization. It is not like most atheists support any of the above things. Atheists and Heathens have morals too.

[Adrien]

I agree with you Goldstein.

It is not like most atheists support any of the above things. Atheists and Heathens have morals too.

Exactly, it is not linked. The problems you evoked JT are the result of a corruption of society and of the human being provoked, led by the "modern society" (today's society) and its flaws.

The fact that the leadership is atheist, anti-clerical or something else has no influence on these, they are the result of the capacity of the leaders to.. lead.

[Enigmatic]

They're forcing Muslims to stop abiding by their religious practises?
Are they trying to fuel the fires of terrorism?

Secular government is fine; state suppression of religion (which banning people from abiding by a practise which is fundamental to their faith) is asking for trouble.

[Adrien]

They are not with this proposal forcing Muslims to give up their practices, in fact you can see that it even allows them to celebrate new important days just like the other religions. It only enforces what should have been done much earlier: imposing secularity within the institutions of the state.

Muslim women will only have to take off their headscarves when they are on the territory of the school, and when they are working if they work for the state's institutions (not if they are customers if i understood well).

Of course, that was predictable, Muslim association start yelling, but their point is irrelevant as they are -just like the other religious groups, Christians and Jewish- playing the martyrs and overexagerating the situation, saying that by doing this the government wants to stigmatise Islam, that it links it to terrorism, that it contributes to the worldwide segregation campaign, etc.

A Muslim leader did not accept that "the French society -of which they are part of might i add- will not accept any attack against the liberty of genders and equality" because he thought that it was a "clear attack against Islam".

That is plain silly since headscarves are not an important religious sign -a big majority of women abandoned it- but just a symbol of oppression for women. Moreover it's absolutely not a Muslim exclusivity, the headscarf existed at the time of the Greeks, in Sicilia, etc.

[Enigmatic]

If someone is required by their religion to wear an item (purportedly to protect their modesty) and they are prohibited from doing so in places where they work or are educated (and I presume education is compulsory in France) then it is forcing them to give up their religious practices.

There's a difference between a secular state, where the state does not legislate or proselytise in favour (or against) of specific religions, which I wholeheartedly support, and suppression of religion, exemplified by the bizzarre phobia of anything which gives the appearance of having religious connotations. It's actually reminiscent of the theocracies which clamped down on the public display of anything which might be perceived to have occult connections.

As you pointed out yourself, headscarves aren't even a "religious sign" or exclusive to one particular religion, it's merely something which Muslim females are required to do by their religious beliefs, something which the government is trying to prevent them from wearing for no practical reason.

[Ásatrúar]

If someone is required by their religion to wear an item (purportedly to protect their modesty) and they are prohibited from doing so in places where they work or are educated (and I presume education is compulsory in France) then it is forcing them to give up their religious practices.

It is part of my religion to carry around a ceremonial dagger.

[Todd D.]

I agree with everything that Enigmatic said. For any government to restrict the free practice of a religion (and yes, like it or not, there are some sects of Islam that believe that women should wear headscarves) is wrong. It goes beyond the separation of church and state, it is outright promoting one religion, namely atheism, and supressing another, Islam. It's a bogus call by a backwards country.

It only enforces what should have been done much earlier: imposing secularity within the institutions of the state.

Does this mean that I, as a Christian, am no longer allowed to wear a cross around my neck? Or what if I had a cross tatooed on my arm, am I not allowed to wear short sleeved shirts anymore?

[Ásatrúar]

It goes beyond the separation of church and state, it is outright promoting one religion, namely atheism, and supressing another, Islam.

If the government was saying, "There is no God," then yes, it would be promoting atheism. However, it doesn't take that stance, it takes no stance. As far as I know the headscarf is not religious, rather cultural. Since the their religion is part of their culture, then lines get crossed. Many Muslim women don't wear headscarfs.

[enLight]

If the government was saying, "There is no God," then yes, it would be promoting atheism. However, it doesn't take that stance, it takes no stance. As far as I know the headscarf is not religious, rather cultural. Since the their religion is part of their culture, then lines get crossed. Many Muslim women don't wear headscarfs.

I think you've got it all wrong. Banning religious wear would be promoting atheism. Allowing only religious wear from one religion would be state-sponsored religion. Allowing any and all religious wear is what the government is supposed to do. No favoritism and no overriding the people's faiths.

The only thing the government is supposed to enforce is keeping religion a personal - not public - matter in the education system. In other words, teachers and students can wear whatever religious iconography they want, granted they don't force others to.

[Adrien]

If someone is required by their religion to wear an item (purportedly to protect their modesty) and they are prohibited from doing so in places where they work or are educated (and I presume education is compulsory in France) then it is forcing them to give up their religious practices.

No it isn't, they can still be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or anything else everywhere, they can still go to the Church or watch religious shows on France2 on the sunday morning, etc.

We are not forcing them to give up their religious practices, just to put them into brackets as we say when they are in a public place, which is completely understandable because of what i said above.

Does this mean that I, as a Christian, am no longer allowed to wear a cross around my neck? Or what if I had a cross tatooed on my arm, am I not allowed to wear short sleeved shirts anymore?

Absolutely not, since the proposal of law recognize the little cross, star of david, fatmah's hands, etc. as allowed. For Tattoos... i'd say that they are in the same group as these yes.

The proposal was purposely clear on the vocabulary: it said "ostensible", which means according to the translation "patent", "open", "fit to be seen".

And finally I agree with what Asatruar just said.

[Mr.Hedgehog]

Wearing religious symbols is free speech...a lot of Muslim people might then refuse to send their daughters to school if they would not be allowed to wear headscarves. Things like Cappa (the hats some Jewish people wear) and stuff are very important to the. No one has the right to say they can't wear those things since they are seen as utterly important.
If you can say "You can't wear a headscarf!" can you then say "She fainted, so we made her eat." "WHAT? IT"S RAMADAN." "What-evah." >>>insert something like this for eating bread at passover<<<

The thing about a parent refusing a male doctor to treat their child shouldn't be allowed a child can't have decided it will follow a religon - especially if not seeing the doctor would be life threatening.

[quote]It is part of my religion to carry around a ceremonial dagger. [quote]
In Canada people who are Sikh are allowed to carry their daggers.
But daggers are scary...so...if you're a sikh male I'm not going near you, and i'm going to avoid eye contact. Being in possession of a weapon is in enfrignment of other people's right to security - so I really don't care what your religion says.