[Truth-a-naut]

No one has the right to say they can't wear those things since they are seen as utterly important.

Who says they have the right to wear them?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

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.

Thats not an argument Goldstein.

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.

I think your wrong, it is just a coincidence that what you just described coincided with the secularization of America? Lets face it, we all know that fear runs a tight ship. The fear of God, like it or not, makes all those that do, think twice before doing something wrong. YOu used to be outcasted when you had an illigitamate child, when you dressed like a whore, when women kissed women on awards shows. This kind of crap just didnt fly 50 years ago. Nobody did them for fear of being ostricized, whether they were religious or not. 50 years ago, children were birthed to a mother and a father, which is the basis for a well developed and stable child.

[Boondock Saint]

JT

- Um, the US has always been a decadent nation, it didnt just start in the 50's like some sort of magic downfall ... the US has been a bloody whore house since its creation ... this is nothing new. But now we have tv, the internet and telephones so we can all hear and talk about what happened in the little town on the other side of the country ... it is information that makes us think there is more crime.

Al Capone was not alive in the 60's. His criminal organization existed long before the 60's ... did you know that people were saying the same things about America that you are saying but they were saying it about the 20's and they were saying it in the 30's?

The roaring 20's when women dressed in little clothing, had multiple sex partners out of marriage and spent nights partying at the local speak easy. Organized crime due to prohabition skyrocketed under Capone (though not only under him) it was even an international crime syndicate.

No my freind, US morals have not taken some drastic downturn, US morals have always been low it is just that more people in the 50's were sheltered in their middle class neighborhoods.

Indeed opium use nearly destroyed the US well before cocaine and Mary Jane got into it and way before PCP and Acid got onto the scene and way way way before Hendrix did his rendition of the National Anthem.

It is propaganda that makes us believe that the US is so much worse then it ever was, it is also improved record keeping and more crimes being reported that allows us to statistically show that there is more crime in modern society then say in the 50's ... but is this true? Statistics only show a part of the story ... not the whole story.

I would like to address some of the specific things you mentiond JT ...

Ou used to be outcasted when you had an illigitamate child

By who? It is true that in middle class America this description would apply ... but the concept that marriage has always been so important to all Americans is false. It has been important to some groups of Americans but not all ... Furthermore I would like to ask you if you honestly think that outcasting single mothers is a good thing ... it is my opinion that people make mistakes and if they are too weak to keep themselves from getting knocked up then it is the responsibilty of that persons family to aid that person espeically now that she will have a child to care for. No, outcasting women for making a mistake imo is not a good thing.

when you dressed like a whore

People called you a tramp, yes yes ... like Marylin Monroe ... come now ... women were dressing scanitly back in the 20's ... this is nothing new. The only difference is that it was a dress that showed your breasts and buttocks as opposed to pants and a shirt.

when women kissed women on awards shows.

I enjoy watching women kiss each other. Why do not? Homophobia is not a quality in a person nor a society.

50 years ago, children were birthed to a mother and a father

Yes yes and alcoholism and spousal abuse was high yet went greatly unreported.

As for the topic at hand ... my views on religion should greatly known around here, I detest all forms of it.

BUT ...

This is not something that works ... it will suppress the religious which will give them power it will also imo take away the flavor of society ...

- State workers represent the state through their work, not what they wear. If a state worker wants to wear a head scarf or a cross then that is up to them. So long as their work is impecable I dont care ... hell if a man wants to wear a dress then thats fine by me.

- Children in schools should not be hindered because they wear religious items or cultural items. Instead they should be asked to enlighten the class as to why they wear these items and what they mean to them. To take away a cross from a Christian or a headscarf from a Muslim is like taking away logic to an atheist.

You cannot fear religion, once you fear it you give it power. You cannot take religion from the people, they must give it up freely. You cannot force the people to give up their Gods ... they must come to that on their own. You cannot punish the people for not embracing logic ... you must allow the people to be who they are.

If they are Christian then that is who they are, if they are Muslim then that is who they are, they must not be chastised for these beliefs ... faulty as they may be. Their beliefs do not cause harm.

State holidays, tricky here in the US ... X-mas has been a state holiday for years now ... but perhaps that can be changed ... though not in my lifetime I am sure. The US has many holidays though few are state holidays ... but workers are free to take off whatever day they need ...

I think that is the best way to handle it ... stay open everyday and those who wish to have off can have off those who wish to work can work. This obviously will not work in places that cannot operate with a skeleton crew ... but no system is perfect. It would also require a rather diverse population ... which here in NY we have. There is no problem with staying open on X-mas as there are plenty of Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, Athiests and the like who will work the same goes for all teh other religious holidays.

Sorry for the long post.

[Adrien]

No one has the right to say they can't wear those things since they are seen as utterly important.

Once again let's make it clear, it's not about forbidding them to wear those signs in general but just in schools and in the public institutions if they are employees. They can continue to do whatever they want elsewhere.

a lot of Muslim people might then refuse to send their daughters to school if they would not be allowed to wear headscarves.

That has been evoked, but i don't think that it would last long. School is compulsory up to 16 in France, and the number of female students wearing that headscarf is quite small.

I think your wrong, it is just a coincidence that what you just described coincided with the secularization of America?

That's exactly what i think actually JT, that the secularization movement crossed the outbreak of all these problems -which had been there for a long time as Boon said but which only exploded at this moment.

We started our own secularization in 1880, separating State and Church in 1905, and the social problems you evoked only appeared on a perplexing scale in the 60's and then 70's.

Now maybe that the suppression of the clerical yoke played a part in that, but certainly not a big one and it was necessary.

[Enigmatic]

Once again let's make it clear, it's not about forbidding them to wear those signs in general but just in schools and in the public institutions if they are employees. They can continue to do whatever they want elsewhere

Great, so they're allowed to act according to their beliefs except when at work or school.
While we're at it, let's force vegetarians to wear fur coats while working for the state or school and make the consumption of alcohol compulsory for teetotallers attending state institutions. Of course, while they're not at work or school they're entitled to abide by their moral code so this couldn't possibly be considered repressive.

The fact that people are allowed to wear small religious symbols purely for the purpose of promoting their religion and yet are not permitted to wear apparel considered a moral necessity by their personal beliefs somehow makes it worse.

Besides, how can schoolkids' non-uniform clothing be perceived as representing the belief of the state?

[Mark]

Who really believes that kids will be indoctrinated by the headwear of teachers???



If anything it'll teach them to think for themselves, not become a mindless drone.

[Adrien]

Great, so they're allowed to act according to their beliefs except when at work or school.

That will only reinforce the fact that religious beliefs are a private thing and should not encroach on public life, the life of the community, at the scale of which everybody is equal and above religious divisions.

The fact that people are allowed to wear small religious symbols purely for the purpose of promoting their religion and yet are not permitted to wear apparel considered a moral necessity by their personal beliefs somehow makes it worse.

They are not allowed to wear small signs to "promote" their religion but because these signs are those that they can consider as a moral necessity to wear. It's those that we are trying to forbid who are tools of promotion of religion and of escalation of the divisions. You are seeing the problem the wrong way round.

Besides, how can schoolkids' non-uniform clothing be perceived as representing the belief of the state?

What do you mean?

Who really believes that kids will be indoctrinated by the headwear of teachers???

Well to me it's not even about a risk of endoctrination, but just because of the respect of the secularity of the state and its institutions. And honestly, it wouldn't be a problem for me to sanction or fire somebody that doesn't want to abide by this principle, which is like any other law.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

But now we have tv, the internet and telephones so we can all hear and talk about what happened in the little town on the other side of the country ... it is information that makes us think there is more crime.

Thats a fair enough assessment, very unprovable, but fair.

Al Capone was not alive in the 60's. His criminal organization existed long before the 60's

Hell, even the mob had a moral code back then.

The roaring 20's when women dressed in little clothing, had multiple sex partners out of marriage and spent nights partying at the local speak easy.

Are you trying to purport that this was the norm in the 20's?

It is propaganda that makes us believe that the US is so much worse then it ever was, it is also improved record keeping and more crimes being reported that allows us to statistically show that there is more crime in modern society then say in the 50's ... but is this true? Statistics only show a part of the story ... not the whole story.

and lets not forget the all to popular trend of under-reporting crimes in many major cities.

By who? It is true that in middle class America this description would apply ... but the concept that marriage has always been so important to all Americans is false. It has been important to some groups of Americans but not all ... Furthermore I would like to ask you if you honestly think that outcasting single mothers is a good thing ... it is my opinion that people make mistakes and if they are too weak to keep themselves from getting knocked up then it is the responsibilty of that persons family to aid that person espeically now that she will have a child to care for. No, outcasting women for making a mistake imo is not a good thing.

I never said it was a good thing, but the astonomical rates of illegitimate babies today is sure as feck NOT A GOOD THING.

By who? It is true that in middle class America this description would apply ... but the concept that marriage has always been so important to all Americans is false. It has been important to some groups of Americans but not all ... Furthermore I would like to ask you if you honestly think that outcasting single mothers is a good thing ... it is my opinion that people make mistakes and if they are too weak to keep themselves from getting knocked up then it is the responsibilty of that persons family to aid that person espeically now that she will have a child to care for. No, outcasting women for making a mistake imo is not a good thing.

Once again, this was not the norm, now it is. Todays children even, are running around in underwear which have 'tease' or sexy' written across the ass, and this is underwear for pre-pubescent teens.

My grand-parents, and even my parents can remember days when you didnt have to lock your doors at night, when your house wasnt broken into when you went on vacation. When you didnt have to worry about being car-jacked. When sex and violence wasnt shoved down your throat through every single possible means. When sports stars were admired for their abilities and not their criminal records. When paying respect to your elders and teachers was required.

One only has to ask any one of baby-boomer or earlier age, to get the same sentiments. Its blind to say that things have not changed, and IMO, downright ignorant. Of course these problems have always been there, but through the acceptance of them, they have become commonplace. Now I must admit that im not very religous, and at some points in my life, have almost been atheist, and havent been to church in probably 20 years, but I do believe whole-heartedly that the morals, values, and above all, the expectations that religion instills in people serve as a guiding light that would otherwise not be there. And I also realize that those like yourself, with great desposition of religion, will not give one inkling ground on this issue. So we can agree to disagree, but I'll never believe that the opening of mass communication lines have been the cause of americas moral bankruptcy. Seems rather foolish to me to discount it off so easily.

[Enigmatic]

They are not allowed to wear small signs to "promote" their religion but because these signs are those that they can consider as a moral necessity to wear. It's those that we are trying to forbid who are tools of promotion of religion and of escalation of the divisions. You are seeing the problem the wrong way round.

No, you are seeing the problem the wrong way round. Female Muslim headdress, Sikh turbans etc are regarded as a moral necessity for their religion, and whilst they may identify the wearer as a member of the religion their primary purpose is to act as a covering for moral reasons. Symbols such as a cross, star of David or crescent are almost invariably worn as decorative adornments symbolising the religious beliefs of the wearer and serve no moral purpose (except perhaps the sort of evangelism you don't want).

What do you mean?

I mean that while I can understand "ostentatious" religious dress worn by state leaders might imply state endorsement of religion, permitting schoolchildren to wear dress necessary to their religion does not.

Well to me it's not even about a risk of endoctrination, but just because of the respect of the secularity of the state and its institutions

Why should people compelled to respect the religious viewpoint of the state? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

Isn't the idea of separation of church and state that the state should not legislate on the acceptability of religious beliefs and practises? Isn't that precisely what the state is doing?

[Adrien]

I guess we simply won't agree, especially about the value and necessity of those religious clothes, signs, whatever.

Why should people compelled to respect the religious viewpoint of the state? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

You're making a mistake here. It's absolutely not about imposing the religious viewpoint of the State: the state has no religious viewpoint, and is not trying to impose anything on the people, be it Christianism or Atheism.

Never in this report have the senators said that religion was bad and that atheism is the way to go. Absolutely not (that's why it doesn't have any "religious" viewpoint). It is only trying to ensure equality and tolerance.

Isn't the idea of separation of church and state that the state should not legislate on the acceptability of religious beliefs and practises? Isn't that precisely what the state is doing?

There are different visions of the "separation of church and state", especially between Europe (and especially us) and America. But to us the separation of Church and State means that Churches cannot influence the political leadership, have the slightest control over it, and that the state will not promote any religious organization.

And that's why the State is now enforcing secularity, to put all the students and workers of its institutions on the same level, and only within its institutions. Once again i underline the fact that religious freedom is absolutely not attacked.

[Enigmatic]

I guess we simply won't agree, especially about the value and necessity of those religious clothes, signs, whatever

Well, yeah, I guess I'm repeating the viewpoint of religious believers on the value and necessity of such symbols, whereas you're repeating the viewpoint of the French government on the value and necessity of such symbols (the viewpoint it supposedly doesn't have)

It's absolutely not about imposing the religious viewpoint of the State: the state has no religious viewpoint

If the state doesn't have a religious viewpoint then why does it view the wearing of religious symbols as something which should be banned in certain places?

It is only trying to ensure equality and tolerance.

Ensuring tolerance by not tolerating the wearing of religious symbols in some places? :ironic applause: