Separation of Church & State... IN FRANCE!

[Darth Buddha]

They Are a Lot More Serious Than the U.S.!

Well, when the French go for separation of church and state, they get REALLY Serious. The lower house of the French legislature has voted to ban Islamic Headscarves, Jewish Skullcaps, and Large Crosses among other things. There are rumors that an accomodation will be reached with the Sihks regarding their turbans... as the Sihks have not been guilty of the disruption and the hatemongering of Jew vs. Muslim vs. Christian.

Here's the article... do you think they've gone too far?

NO FRANCOPHOBIA OR BASHING OF ONE OR ANOTHER RELIGION VS. ANOTHER IS WELCOME HERE!


BUT IF IT GETS UGLY (PEOPLE ATTACKING EACH OTHER OR INTENTIONALLY TROLLING) I'M GONNA DELETE THE WHOLE DAMNED THING!

Any reasoned, factual, or even just an opinion, so long as it isn't just to provoke, is fine.
French Parliament Votes to Ban Signs of Faith

By Tom Heneghan

PARIS (Reuters) - France's National Assembly voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to banish religious emblems from state schools, a measure meant to keep tensions between Muslim and Jewish minorities out of public classrooms.

Deputies voted 494 to 36 to ban Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses and to expel pupils who insisted on wearing them. It will not apply to private schools.

The government says the ban does not single out any religion, but cabinet ministers acknowledge its main targets are the Islamic headscarves and anti-Semitic remarks from Muslim pupils that teachers say have become more frequent.

"After this debate and the magnitude of this vote, both the republic and its secularism have been reinforced," Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin told deputies.

"What is at issue here is the clear affirmation that public school is a place for learning and not for militant activity or proselytism," Assembly Speaker Jean-Louis Debre said.

It was the first reading of the bill, which must go to the Senate and then back to the National Assembly for final approval in mid-March, which now should be just a formality.

The key passage of the law, which schools would apply from September, reads: "In primary and secondary state schools, wearing signs and clothes that conspicuously display the pupil's religious affiliation is forbidden."

"This will not solve the problem," said Lhaj Thami Breze, president of the large Union of French Islamic Organizations (UOIF). "Who will decide what's conspicuous and what's not?"

He said the UOIF would urge schoolgirls to opt for discrete head coverings such as bandannas or caps and hoped these would be accepted at school. "It's unfortunate that the whole nation is so preoccupied with a simple piece of cloth," he remarked.

Nicholas Perruchot, a centrist UDF deputy who voted against the bill, said: "The law will not be applicable and the disputes will not diminish."

RISING RACISM, ANTI-SEMITISM

The ban has wide public support in France, which has the largest Muslim and Jewish minorities in western Europe.

Leaders of France's 5 million Muslims denounce it as discriminatory and likely to stigmatize veiled schoolgirls. It has provoked criticism from Muslim and Christian leaders abroad, including Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II.

Jewish leaders have been split over the ban, with those in favor seeing it as a bulwark against the militant Islam they see spreading in poor neighborhoods with mixed populations.

Lord Greville Janner, vice-president of the World Jewish Congress, said in London it was a sad decision which "disgracefully punished the entire Muslim population and other religious communities."

Before the vote, Education Minister Luc Ferry said France had witnessed a "spectacular rise in racism and anti-Semitism in the last three years" and the ban would help to keep classes from dividing into "militant religious communities."

He said the law would also make clear pupils could not object to or skip classes for religious reasons.

Teachers have complained in recent years of problems with Muslim pupils who interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews, boycott classes on human reproduction because they are "immodest," or refuse to attend physical education.

It was not clear if France would also ban Sikh turbans, which the country's 5,000 Sikhs say are not religious symbols.

In Kuala Lumpur, about 40 supporters of the fundamentalist Islamic PAS, the biggest opposition party in mainly Muslim Malaysia, protested against the law outside the French embassy chanting "Long live Islam" and "Crush the infidels."

[stellar]

I think it's about assimilation. It's a drastic way to impose assimilation to the French culture, but it's their culture. We can't put our standards of assimilation on the French. American culture is pop culture and is always evolving. France has an old and ingrained culture that's being disrupted by mass immigration. In order for them to keep the French culture French, they've gone and done this. It's ambitious but *flame on* necessary.

This is less about religious freedom and more about the freedom to protect ones civilization. Saudi Arabia does it.

[DRD2001]

I think it is way too far. Whether it is necessary or not, time will tell. There are many religions which have done no harm, and yet they are being penalized. Maintaining a culture is one thing, but what about maintaining a religious culture too. Tolerance would be a better lesson all the way around. But maybe they've already tried that. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens.

[NebariNookiee]

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

[stellar]

Will it be telivised?

[NebariNookiee]

Originally posted by stellar
Will it be telivised?
Well, now -- that's the real question, isn't it.

[NYPinTA]

"In Kuala Lumpur, about 40 supporters of the fundamentalist Islamic PAS, the biggest opposition party in mainly Muslim Malaysia, protested against the law outside the French embassy chanting "Long live Islam" and "Crush the infidels." "

Yeah, that'll help make your case. Chanting: Crush the ifidels. :rolleyes:

There are a few things that strike me the most:
1) Most of the complaints are referring to it being discriminatory against Muslims only, when all religious symbols are being banned.
2) I think the French goverment is trying to make this point: If you are a citizen of France, you are French first, religion second. Notice in this country more and more people are describing themselves with a hypen and the word 'american' comes last?

I have no idea if this is a good idea or not. We will see won't we. But if I were religious I would be pretty ticked too.

[NebariNookiee]

I prefer my way of thinking

Human first
Father second
American takes a back seat to Earthling any day.
Religion means jack to me. It's nothing but a spiritual shackle.

[Ouroboros]

I'm for it. If as the article says the religious iconography was just serving as a means of polarising the school further out with it. They used to ban gang colours and bandanas in the school I went to for this same reason.

[NYPinTA]

Originally posted by NebariNookiee
I prefer my way of thinking
:eh: (Insert cute and sarcastic comment here!) :D

Originally posted by NebariNookiee
Human first
Father second
American takes a back seat to Earthling any day.
Religion means jack to me. It's nothing but a spiritual shackle.

I think I like your way of thinking too. :aok:

My point about the hypenated names was that it irks me sometimes that it seems like people are trying harder to subdivide themselves.

[DRD2001]

But don't symbols shift and change. Yesterday a cross. Today a Jesus fish. Tomorrow a dove. The day after, the letters "WWJD". I don't see how the French gov't will be able to keep up. People are into symbols. I'm just glad it isn't happening here,... yet.

[Darth Buddha]

This is going even better than I had expected.

[AyuRocks]

Ok... first off, I'm not at all a religious person. Church wouldn't baptise me (grrrr) and I just wasn't rasised that way...

It bugs me that "under God" is in the pledge of alligence and that schools in our country are allowed to have rules banning pentagrams but it's perfectly fine for people to wear crosses and stars of david (I'd prefer no ban at all but if you're going to ban something religious, then you should ban everything religious, otherwise it's just picking and chosing which religions you like or don't like.. but I digress).

but it doesn't bug me to see religious symbols, and I definately respect other people's religion. It doesn't bug me to see a cross, I'm not "offended" by it in any sense of the word.

The French government has gone totally psycho on this one. They're acting ridiculous.

What? Soon people won't like seeing a church or other religious building? Are they going to outlaw churches?

Just reminds me of communist supression of religion, this of course for different reasons, but the outcome is the same. No one should be ashamed to be religious, and I think that's what's going to happen, especially with the young children that won't understand why the can't wear a cross or a star of david, or other religious symbols.

I've going nothing against France (hey, I'm nearly half French!) but it's just plain stupid.

Ashley

[Darth Buddha]

Well put.. this could lead to a very dangerous slippery slope.

On the other hand, it could just be a bookend, this far and no further. MORE would be REALLY REALLY REALLY SCAREY!

[AgentSun]

i appreciate religion itself in all forms. it's a wonderful thing to find something to have faith in for religious people, no matter of what religion. i may not agree with other religions but i respect the freedom to believe in them. by banning all these religious icons they are alienating people from who they are. being a citizen means that you are of a certain nationality, a certain ethnicity, a certain gender, and then a certain religion, or lack of one. religion is a part of a lot of people and for them to begin to ban all of these icons means that they are coming off as "we hate religion" and for being a member of "civilized" society, france should not be doing this.

[Judith]

Question:

Does this mean they don't have free speech in their constitution? It seems to me that separation of church and state works best when it is balanced by freedom of speech. That is, I don't want to see a particular religion advocated on a governmental level. I also don't want the government restricting my religious practices.

It seems like separation of church and state without free speech can be counterproductive and somewhat defeating. That leaves the possibility that things like this will be selectively enfourced for specific religions. Which makes other religions default state religions.

[NebariNookiee]

"Freedom" is an illusion.

Remember -- you are born free. It's society that decides how much "freedom" you can have.

[DentArthurDent]

Sadly, this is one of those sounds good on paper laws, to proscribe behavior, the really doesn't work too well PRECISELY because it treats intolerance over tolerance. I think they are looking at it wrong too, if they may be thinking 'French First' then religious second... A great number of people associate with religion on a higher level than they associate with country... that is why religious tolerance is so precious, because it is another connection with another set of human being that transcends boundry. Singling out religions for something like this just hit the intolerance button. The people in France that are making religious trouble will make it regardless of the law, this only punishes the innocent, IMHO.

AFD

[fermicat]

I think that what they are trying to accomplish is a good thing (less religious conflict among students), but the way they are going about it is not ideal. Hiding evidence of their differences does not make them in any way less different. It seems like a remedy to mask the symptoms that does not address the unlying disease. If the religious groups cannot find a way to get along in a highly civilized, genteel country like France, there seems little hope of it happening in developing countries where the violence is more pronounced. This is very discouraging.

[Lord Loser]

Serious and curious question, I have.

What is a Religion?

[Scaper_S]

I have a friend who has moved to England to get away from the very extreme views she has had to encounter in France. I agree with fermicat that it is very discouraging. The people that will be affected have a very strong faith and the clothing they wear reflects that. I really hope it isn't a veiled attempt at segregation as I'm sure the people affected would rather set up their own schools, etc than have to publicly deny their faith.
I hold no religious allegiance or views, but I do think people have the right to follow their chosen religion and their own culture, providing they do not force others to follow the same or carry out extreme acts in the name of religion.
I find it difficult to form a clear opinion though. On one hand there's the "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" view and on the other, I feel people should be able to keep there own culture within another culture. Difficult.

[Darth Buddha]

Another case of "There is just enough religion in the world to make men hate each other, but not enough to make men love each other."

And LL, I am totally out of my depth in defining religion. I know it is BY DEFINITION illogical, because it involves faith, not proof, and denies/defies deduction. Beyond that, I'm toast.

[Tiriel]

I think ultimately secularism is basically Atheism of the State. It's not trying to represent all religions in the same way, but make sure that no religious thought makes government decisions.

The secular tradition is strong in France and much of Europe and non-traditional and non-organized religions like Atheism and Agnosticism are far more prevailend (Wiccan being a notable exception, it's much stronger here in the US, looks like the Inquisition did a splendid job!). I think, that's part of what has made the French Government adopt such a hard stance: Most organized religions carry within them the imperative to convert others. And organized religion has ruled and suppressed Europe for so long that the fear has never left and it is being passed on from generation to generation.
Christianity has long since been "overcome". It no longer poses a thread, because it has softened its stance so much. It has gone from "Believe and do what we tell you or you will burn in Hell and we'll get you there by burning you on the stake!" to "What people believe is between them and their God. We are the way. We're here and willing to show you the way if you want to." (and I'm talking European Churches here, I know that a lot of people in Europe are annoyed to no end by the Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses going door to door!).
Now, Islam is a different matter entirely. In many countries it is currently where Christanity was 450-500 years ago, in the phase where you go out and have Holy Wars and God's Law is the only Law. It scares the crap out of most Europeans. Not necessarily out of fear of loosing their Cultural identity, but out of fear that there might be a revolution growing in their midst, that the old law of religion could rise again and undo Enlightenment. Of course that's BS, but most fears are, especially if they are based in a long History of very real bad experiences (in the Dark Ages the Catholic Church was pretty much the equivalent of the Taleban in Afghanistan, no exaggeration).

I think, the comparison to flashing gang-signs or to wearing gang-colours is pretty accurate. And although often it will be the parents who are actually "flashing" the colours in this case, it's the kids that fight it out in the end. "You don't believe in God, so you will go to Hell!" "I'll show you Hell!"

There's a really good article at the BBC site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3459963.stm#Rachida), quoting a French muslim woman who says "Where I live, in a small town in France, girls and young women are intimidated by Muslim men who oblige them to wear the scarf. These Muslim women are often isolated, and need some protection. The law to outlaw the veil goes some way towards addressing this need."
So are they right to ban overt religious symbols? Are the American school authorities right to ban gang-colours? Don't kids define themselves through their gang-affiliations?
I think, if they said "No-one is allowed to wear any kind of overtly religious symbols in public at all.", yes, that would be a restriction of religious freedom. To ban it from schools is different. What if there was a Nudist religion? Should those kids be allowed to go to school naked? Do on you own sweet time whatever you feel is right, but official places and occasions are different. I think the French are just as justified to defend their Secularism as many Islamic countries are in requesting foreigners not to drink alcohol in public places. Just my $0.02 of course :)

Love and Peace and Peaceful Diversity :)

Tiriel :bounce:

[Lord Loser]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha

And LL, I am totally out of my depth in defining religion. I know it is BY DEFINITION illogical, because it involves faith, not proof, and denies/defies deduction. Beyond that, I'm toast. Yes, but I did not ask anyone to define religion. I asked what is a religion?

[Ouroboros]

Lets look at this from a purely logical perspective.

What is to be gained from the display of religious icons in a school setting?

What is to be lost?

I've never understood the need to display religious iconography in the first place. If religion is such a deep and meaningful thing as so many people claim it is what's the difference whether or not you get to wear the piece of cloth on your head. Surely there's more to your faith than cloth and icons right? Of course then the inevitable counter point is if it's not a big deal then why not just let them wear it. Well we need to look at how the scales balance out between the two questions I asked above.

I can't honestly think of anything that is gained from the display of religious icons in a school. I'm not religious in the slightest but most people I know who are would all agree that their faith runs deeper than the mere material iconography they display on their bodies. Therefore it seems to me that the icons are of little or no actual use to the faith itself and are hardly necessary for it's existence.

So on the what is gained side we've got a bit fat zippo. Nothing is to be gained from the display of religious icons in a school environment.

What is to be lost: As the article stated religious icons were becoming a means by which groups of students identified themselves. Well kids of the same religion will still band together regardless you say. Perhaps but it won't be as easy for them. Without the little cap, headscarf or whatever there won't be such an easy way for kids to pick out who is and isn't on "their team". Children from households for example who're told "not to associate with Jews" will find it more difficult to identify the Jews if they're not clearly marked out as such. This might force them to accidentally begin to talk to or relate to one of another faith which in turn will lead them to better understand the reality of humanity as opposed to the demonizing religious bullshit their parents feed them. A Muslim student might make a new friend at school for example or find a girl attractive only to later find out he/she is a Jew or Christian and not so different from himself as he was led to believe. Religious icons display ones allegiance openly to his peers. They are a uniform that sends out a message that is loaded with stereotypes centuries old prejudices and illogical distortions. As such often times it will be that a person looking at them will not see past the headscarf, cross or cap to the actual person there. they'll simply see the uniform and say "he's not one of my kind” before ever even attempting to interact with the person.

So when we look at the scales they’re weighted to one side. Religious icons are detrimental in the school setting, it doesn’t matter how slight or trivial you may view the detriment it is still there and it outweighs the nothing on the other side of the scale. It is contested only by the logically irrelevant perceived civil right to display these icons even though by the admission of religious persons the icons themselves are not a necessary part of the faith. In other words the exercise of their right boils down to simple defiance for the sake of defiance. They’re unwilling to give up something entirely unneeded simply because someone suggested that they should.

[TheBladeRoden]

I gotta put this quote in before I forget.
"We want more Islamics in a French way than French in an Islamic way."

[BillFrugge]

So much misunderstanding. Where to begin? I've looked into many different religions: Catholic, Protestant, Apostolic, Hare Krishna, Wesleyan, Methodist... I don't proclaim to be an expert on the subject, but someone has to be able to balance this a little. I will try.

Religion is Faith. Faith is Faith. Icons are... well, icons.

Icons, scarves, beads, skullcaps, etc. are a special matter -- it depends on the religion. Most Christian religions observe the 2nd Commandment to command that there are to be no idols made of God. (You worship God, not an idol) Judaism orders a skullcap to be worn. Muslim beliefs instruct that the head be covered. And so on. These are not to seperate religions, but to honor the god for which they designate. There is a reason for every one. (Incidently, skullcaps are worn only during ceremony. Jews do not wear them throughout their daily life.)

This new edict may not have an immediate impact on Christians, but it does severely affect Muslims. They are right, this is targeted. That is troubling.

And please do not make references like 'demonizing religious bullshit.' If you don't believe in God, that does not make those who do 'demons.' Religion is not about killing those who disagree, although some have distorted it that way. Most religions encourage the flock to spread the word of God, in much the way we spread the word of Farscape.

[DRD2001]

Ahhhh...Farscape as a new religion.

Any one game to start one up?

[Weetabix]

As a french person I can try to give my point of view.

You have to understand that the separation of church and state when it was done in France was really done .
The concept of republic and secularity is very strong in France.
Religion is a mostly a matter of private sphere and should not interfere with the Republic more than that.
For exemple, you'll never heard the president throw some "God blesses you" and other invocation in one of his speech.
Someone talked about assimilation. Well it's definitly not that case in France. It's about integration. Integration has never made you lost you origins, your native tongue or your religion.
The debate is not finish here, even if a large part of the french agree. We know that it's not the best of the solution, but it seems for the moment to be the only one to stop some abuses that have started to rise since last years.
Anyway this law will be re-examinated in a year.

You know everything is a question of culture. I'm always amazed on how religious can be the USA. I've never had the feeling that there was once a separation between state and church over here. ;)

[DRD2001]

Originally posted by Weetabix
I'm always amazed on how religious can be the USA. I've never had the feeling that there was once a separation between state and church over here. ;) There are plenty of Americans who are not comfortable with all the religious talk which certain political agendas are built upon. Personally, I think most Americans take their religion too seriously.

Thanks for your point of view. It is nice to hear from someone who is currently there and knows all the facts and the climate. This is one issue on which I will probably be keeping an eye. I hope things work out. Violence, under any facade, should not be tolerated.

[AyuRocks]

Originally posted by BillFrugge
This new edict may not have an immediate impact on Christians, but it does severely affect Muslims. They are right, this is targeted. That is troubling.

Agreed.

Ashley

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by DRD2001
Ahhhh...Farscape as a new religion.

Any one game to start one up?

Been there, done that. I joined with some Philosophy majors in school to create a religion that worshipped the banana. It was fun. We made up hymns, held meetings, and drove the teachers nuts.

In the US, you can't really separate church and state. The founders wanted to prevent the state from requiring people to joining a specific church. Over the years, that has lost it's meaning.

[BlackThorn]

Originally posted by BillFrugge
Religion is Faith. Faith is Faith. Icons are... well, icons.

I would have to disagree with this. You have faith without religion, and as sad as it is, you can have religion without faith. You can have undeniable faith in your beliefs without following or believing in a specific religion. When you start defining the set of beliefs, the rules, the practices, and so on . . . that's when you start having a religion.

But that's just my view on it, and the great thing about people, is that we all have our different views. :D


Edited to add: Of course, the two usually become intertwined. After all, a religion without faith is pretty sad. I just see the two as different things that optimally go hand in hand.

[Saajak]

What troubles me is that it seems they may allow certain religious symbols to remain (such as the Sikh headscarf). If you're going to remove religous icons from a population you have to do it for everyone or it perilously resembles persecution. I don't agree with this step at all (and I'm not a religious person).

[AgentSun]

i think that if they want to stop religious symbols, then be fair and do something for everyone...or else the problem becomes that they are targeting, as billfrugge said. and targeting is not what needs to be done. i don't like the supression of religion because i appreciate more than anything the freedom to have religion and be a member of my religion. i choose to do so not because anyone chooses for me, just like someone else chooses not to have a religion, not because someone has said they can't. thats what i like about being an American citizen.

the issue i have with france is that they look like they are trying to limit everyone because it looks like they are afraid of people being individual french people. they look like they'd rather have a lot of french people with different private beliefs but not voice them in public, than to have a lot of different people with different religions who all happen to be french.

i'm not saying they ARE this way, it just LOOKS like they are to me.

[Ouroboros]

And please do not make references like 'demonizing religious bullshit.' If you don't believe in God, that does not make those who do 'demons.'

You read this the wrong way. I wasn't claiming that people who follow a religious faith are demons (that'd be a rather silly label for an atheist to assign wouldn't it) I was claiming that religion is often a source of irrationally distorted hatred between different groups. Often times the only source without which no such hatred would exist. One side says X about Y the other side says Y about Z neither of which is anywhere close to the truth. One faith will demonize the practitioners of another in other words. Example; my mother recently rode a bus and happened to pic up a hardline Islamic newspaper that had been discarded on the seat next to her. Said paper claimed in no uncertain terms that "Jews murder babies".

If kids in schools are going to hate each other I'd rather they hate each other based on something honest not based on what their parents told them about what the people in the headscarves/caps/crosses did to them a very long time ago in a land far far away.

[waltersgirl]

pulls up a comfy chair and props it in the corner, pops a beer and gets comfortable. sets fully automatic, ultra high compression paintball gun within arms reach should it be needed for misbehavior. sets crate of ammunition next to chair. puts feet up and waits patiently. :smokin:

[Jul]

pulls up a chair, pops a coke, sits back and hangs out watching :beer:

[Darth Buddha]

Originally posted by waltersgirl
pulls up a comfy chair and props it in the corner, pops a beer and gets comfortable. sets fully automatic, ultra high compression paintball gun within arms reach should it be needed for misbehavior. sets crate of ammunition next to chair. puts feet up and waits patiently. :smokin: Originally posted by Jul
pulls up a chair, pops a coke, sits back and hangs out watching :beer: Thanks for running herd... the last thing I want is for this or any other poll to lead to a dren-storm.

[waltersgirl]

you bet. i'm all bulldren'd out.

[Lord Loser]

Originally posted by BlackThorn
I would have to disagree with this. You have faith without religion, and as sad as it is, you can have religion without faith. You can have undeniable faith in your beliefs without following or believing in a specific religion. When you start defining the set of beliefs, the rules, the practices, and so on . . . that's when you start having a religion.

But that's just my view on it, and the great thing about people, is that we all have our different views. :D


Edited to add: Of course, the two usually become intertwined. After all, a religion without faith is pretty sad. I just see the two as different things that optimally go hand in hand. So a religion is a group of people with the same basic beliefs getting together to excercise those common beliefs in the way they agree it should be done? Hmmm...

That's an interesting definition.

[BlackThorn]

I didn't say anything about people getting together.

[Lord Loser]

How else could they define the "set of beliefs, the rules, the practices, and so on..."?

[frellyou]

Well I guess they'll be flying planes into the Eiffel Tower now.

[pilot_lethina]

I can sum up my feelings in two words: Religious Persecution

[Nicola]

Originally posted by Weetabix
As a french person I can try to give my point of view.

You have to understand that the separation of church and state when it was done in France was really done .
The concept of republic and secularity is very strong in France.
Religion is a mostly a matter of private sphere and should not interfere with the Republic more than that.
For exemple, you'll never heard the president throw some "God blesses you" and other invocation in one of his speech.
Someone talked about assimilation. Well it's definitly not that case in France. It's about integration. Integration has never made you lost you origins, your native tongue or your religion.
The debate is not finish here, even if a large part of the french agree. We know that it's not the best of the solution, but it seems for the moment to be the only one to stop some abuses that have started to rise since last years.
Anyway this law will be re-examinated in a year.

You know everything is a question of culture. I'm always amazed on how religious can be the USA. I've never had the feeling that there was once a separation between state and church over here. ;)

Hi Weetabix. Thanks for sharing your insights. It is always nice to get the insider POV.

[BaseLine]

Originally posted by Weetabix
As a french person I can try to give my point of view.

You have to understand that the separation of church and state when it was done in France was really done .
The concept of republic and secularity is very strong in France.
Religion is a mostly a matter of private sphere and should not interfere with the Republic more than that.
For exemple, you'll never heard the president throw some "God blesses you" and other invocation in one of his speech.
Someone talked about assimilation. Well it's definitly not that case in France. It's about integration. Integration has never made you lost you origins, your native tongue or your religion.
The debate is not finish here, even if a large part of the french agree. We know that it's not the best of the solution, but it seems for the moment to be the only one to stop some abuses that have started to rise since last years.
Anyway this law will be re-examinated in a year.

You know everything is a question of culture. I'm always amazed on how religious can be the USA. I've never had the feeling that there was once a separation between state and church over here. ;)

I am aware that France focuses on integration as opposed to a multi-cultural society, and I can understand that in public buildings such as schools you want to actually see somebody's face instead of a burqa. But to forbid every religious icon is very exaggerated. The only effect will be that most muslims (who are most affected by this shroudlaw) will have a strenghtened faith. Especially in the extremist corner who will consider this as another step against Islam.

I do agree with you that the USA has it a bit the other way around. For example, every speech by president Bush is ended with "God Bless America". I'm not at all a religious person, but why don't say (if only once) "God Bless the World?". The world needs it.

[Bekka Horror]

I cant be bothered to find the origninal post but didnt they say they were banning head scalves, scullcaps and large crosses. That does smack to me of religious persicution, that their stoping muslims from wearing their religious dress while jews aren't allowed to wear something that they wouldnt usualy wear for school and christians are still alowed to wear crosses.

As for the issue of icons, im a pagan (i belive that these more than 1 god but i dont perform magic/magik). Not having been raised that way, but descovering my beliefs on my own i dont know if other people feel the same but, when i wear a pentagram (which i dont do everyday) i feel closer to my religion and more empowed about it. It allowes me to be more upfront about my beliefs and who i am even if its just to myself.

[Weetabix]

the issue i have with france is that they look like they are trying to limit everyone because it looks like they are afraid of people being individual french people. they look like they'd rather have a lot of french people with different private beliefs but not voice them in public, than to have a lot of different people with different religions who all happen to be french.
I don't think you get the point. It's not about not being individual, it's about respecting the way education is made in France : the same for everybody, and no religious or politics beliefs will give you the right to not participate to some programs or to depise some teachers because they are teaching you things that has been established by national Education. And that's what has been happening the last years.The french public education is secular.
Away from that you can voice your religious beliefs and so wherever you want.
You know we frenchies have a reputation of going down on the street for any reason. Demonstrations and strikes are an art in France. So please don't tell about not voicing in public. We do that very well ;)


The thing is that it is in fact mostly directed to the muslins for the moment because most of the problems have started with some Muslins fundamentalisms who are using Islam in a not very nice way especially at school. But it could have been any other group. And this law is for everybody, not a speicific religion.
I remember having a catholic integrist in one of my my class and I can tell you that some teachers had to put him back in his place because of his behavior.
If you don't want to do or to be teached certain things that are not permitted by your religion, then you do not go in a public french school. You choose a private religious school that will give you or your children the acurate education.
My cousin is a strong catholic and she sent her kids in a catholic school because she didn't like the idea of them being in a public school.

Anyway it's a complex affair. As someone stated it well, France has a long history and a culture that goes with.

I can sum up my feelings in two words: Religious Persecution
Please...that's a little bit strong don't you think ?
What about : "freedom of ones stops where others' starts".
I'm sorry but when you are spitted in the face by a bunch of 14 years old kids that call you "porc eater", well there is something wrong.
No need to add some religious conflicts in the school zone. This is a neutral area.

Yes it's sad that because of some stupid and dangerous people some others have to suffer such a law.

Well I guess they'll be flying planes into the Eiffel Tower now.
It seems that they had this kind of idea way before 9/11. (the 1994 hijack of the Airbus at the Marseille airport)
There also might has been some plans to blow up the metro underground right up under the Seine river, so that all the water would flood into the tunnels. Nice isn't it ?


I am aware that France focuses on integration as opposed to a multi-cultural society We already are a multi-cultural society. You are confusing integration and assimilation. I live in one of the most mixed area Paris, where chineses, africans, algerians etc all live together and I can assure you that the multi culturality is here. And I love it.
Main events of various religions are celebrated here in France as they are in many countries.


Hi Weetabix. Thanks for sharing your insights. It is always nice to get the insider POV. You're welcome.Sorry for my bad english, it's hard for me to put my toughts in order while not writting in my native tongue. :)

[DRD2001]

Thanks again for the view. And trust me, your English is much better than my French. ;)

That was some very eye opening information. Especially about potential terrorism. With all the information in the world, I think sometimes I am guilty of paying more attention to my own corner first and foremost.

I initially thought it seemed extreme for France to go to these measures. But if the violence has all been religiously inspired, then perhaps it is necessary. And correct. If people don't like it, they can go to a private school which supports their religious beliefs.

BTW, do you mind if I post some of your comments on another board. They are also having this conversation and I would like them to see the opinion of someone living in France.

[BaseLine]

Originally posted by Weetabix
We already are a multi-cultural society. You are confusing integration and assimilation. I live in one of the most mixed area Paris, where chineses, africans, algerians etc all live together and I can assure you that the multi culturality is here. And I love it.
Main events of various religions are celebrated here in France as they are in many countries.

You're right. I meant cultural assimilation instead of integration. My bad :)

[Weetabix]

You're right. I meant cultural assimilation instead of integration. My bad No problemo. I just had to react to that since France is definitly not a country that tries to assimilate its immigrants.

Originally posted by DRD2001
Thanks again for the view. And trust me, your English is much better than my French. ;)

That was some very eye opening information. Especially about potential terrorism. With all the information in the world, I think sometimes I am guilty of paying more attention to my own corner first and foremost.We had our part of bombing in the 80 and 90. Stores and metros of Paris where the main targets and there were lots of deads.

I initially thought it seemed extreme for France to go to these measures. But if the violence has all been religiously inspired, then perhaps it is necessary. And correct. If people don't like it, they can go to a private school which supports their religious beliefs.It is extreme, but maybe necessary for a while. As I said before, this law is to be re examinated in a year or so. I hope it will be put down if things got better. And it is not only a matter of violence but also a matter of respect.

BTW, do you mind if I post some of your comments on another board. They are also having this conversation and I would like them to see the opinion of someone living in France. Yes you can post my comments, though I don't feel like I'm that interesting ;)

[waltersgirl]

It seems that they had this kind of idea way before 9/11.

i was 8 years old in 1972, when 11 Israeli athletes became the victims of religious terrorism. 2 were killed immediately and another 9 were taken hostage in the Olympic Village. the 9 later died at the airport during a shootout, when West German police tried to an extraction.

i remember it all vividly. Mark Spits won 7 gold medals, all in world record times during that Olympics. i watched several of the races from a barber shop in Las Vegas. we were visiting my grandparents. Olga Korbut won 3 gold medals in gymnastics.

and 19 people died because of religion. they were all victims, terrorist and hostage alike. they were all victims because cowards with political agendas hijack religions to get what they want, hiding behind the tenants of a religion, changing its belief systems to so much fundamentalist bullshit to get what they want. it's never about God, or Allah, or The Divine Bunny Rabbit...it's about power. it's *always* about power.

i remember the burned out husk of helicopter on the tarmac. i remember the image of the hooded terrorists from the balcony of the Olympic Village. i remember those things not because the images were shown over and over. i remember them because i saw it happen, as it happened. that one event could arguably be one of the single most formative events in my life. no God would want that. i don't care how any coward tries to twist a religion to justify acts of terrorism. it's all still a lie. it's all still cowardice. and it's all still about power. none of it has anything to do with God, anyone's God. it's human malice and human avarice and human insecurity. religions that preach that theirs is the only "true" way only make it easier for man's weaknesses to be exploited.

Michaelangelo's question, posed in the art of the Sistine Chapel, is as relevant today as it was when he asked it. is Man God's greatest creation, or is God Man's greatest creation. persecution based solely on religious belief always makes me answer in the latter.

i wish France luck. sincerely. Europe cannot afford another religious upheaval. if France loses, the rest of Europe is at risk.