Chirac proposes ban on wearing religious symbols in public schools, hospitals
12-17-2003, 01:11 PM
#1
Wannabe yuppie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chirac proposes ban on wearing religious symbols in public schools, hospitals
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...ves/index.html
Essentially:
""I feel that wearing any kind of symbol that ostensibly shows faith, I feel that that is something that should not be allowed in schools and colleges.
If we are talking about a star of David, the hand of Fatima or a small cross, those are acceptable, but when it's very obvious, in other words, when if they are worn people can immediately see what religious faith they belong to, that should not be accepted.
...
Secularity is one of the republic's great achievements... It plays a crucial role in social harmony and national cohesion. We must not allow it to be weakened."
Now I've definitely been known to say that the US guarantees us freedom from religion just as much as it guarantees us free exercise of religion as long as the state doesn't sponsor any of it. However I feel like this ban would impose on the individual liberty of free practice of religion by not allowing people to show thier faith. Now maybe if this were applying to municipal workers only then it would be one thing, but this has to do with the students and patients themselves.
So um, let the French bashing begin!
Essentially:
""I feel that wearing any kind of symbol that ostensibly shows faith, I feel that that is something that should not be allowed in schools and colleges.
If we are talking about a star of David, the hand of Fatima or a small cross, those are acceptable, but when it's very obvious, in other words, when if they are worn people can immediately see what religious faith they belong to, that should not be accepted.
...
Secularity is one of the republic's great achievements... It plays a crucial role in social harmony and national cohesion. We must not allow it to be weakened."
Now I've definitely been known to say that the US guarantees us freedom from religion just as much as it guarantees us free exercise of religion as long as the state doesn't sponsor any of it. However I feel like this ban would impose on the individual liberty of free practice of religion by not allowing people to show thier faith. Now maybe if this were applying to municipal workers only then it would be one thing, but this has to do with the students and patients themselves.
So um, let the French bashing begin!
12-17-2003, 09:25 PM
#4
Stuff and things.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chirac is out of his mind. If he really wants a free society for France, he cannot eliminate freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
By the way, French Fries were invented in Belgium.
By the way, French Fries were invented in Belgium.
12-17-2003, 10:33 PM
#5
Wannabe yuppie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by sxecrow
no comment; religion = teh suck :down:
no comment; religion = teh suck :down:
Personally I'm firmly against any government sponsoring religion in any form. At the same time I feel that private citizens should be allowed free practice of religion as long as they don't impose their beliefs upon others.
Of course, some people say the same thing when they try to get prayer back into schools. The difference in my mind at least is that having a designated prayer time would be a state sponsorship of the active practicing of religion by making time for it in the schedule; whereas allowing students to passively observe their religion by wearing symbolic items doesn't require the state to make any resources available to allow it to go on.
12-21-2003, 01:20 PM
#6
So OG it hurts.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: VA
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should be allowed to wear what I want, when and where I want.
If someone is wearing a nasty shirt, a large amount of people will feel the shirt is offensive, and out of that group I'm sure some will show their outrage to the person wearing the shirt, either verbally or physically. Now if not a lot of people are getting upset about the shirt other than me, sounds like a personal problem.
Am I making any sense?
If someone is wearing a nasty shirt, a large amount of people will feel the shirt is offensive, and out of that group I'm sure some will show their outrage to the person wearing the shirt, either verbally or physically. Now if not a lot of people are getting upset about the shirt other than me, sounds like a personal problem.
Am I making any sense?
12-28-2003, 08:31 AM
#7
Registered User
So um, let the French bashing begin!
Well, I don't want to bash them, but I can't help feeling there's something in the story that we're not getting in this thread.
Just what kinds of symbols have proved to be a problem in France?
I can imagine some huge problems.
An Indian embassy employee who is a Brahman, and wears traditional garb and has a mark on his forehead.
A British member of the House of Lords who is a Sikh and therefore always wears his blue turban.
What kinds of symbols have caused this problem for the French?
12-28-2003, 12:02 PM
#8
Wannabe yuppie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French for whatever reason have made a big issue out of Muslim women wearing head scarves. So to get rid of the scarves they're making a ban across the board so as not to be perceived as targeting the scarves.
12-28-2003, 12:44 PM
#9
Registered User
Originally posted by MrFatbooty The French for whatever reason have made a big issue out of Muslim women wearing head scarves. So to get rid of the scarves they're making a ban across the board so as not to be perceived as targeting the scarves.
12-28-2003, 01:29 PM
#10
Stuff and things.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/in...partner=GOOGLE
France had unrestricted immigration for a number of years. A lot of people immigrated and the native French got a little xenophobic.
Its ironic that the French gave us the Statue of Liberty that bears a plaque reading "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Or maybe its just sad.
France had unrestricted immigration for a number of years. A lot of people immigrated and the native French got a little xenophobic.
Its ironic that the French gave us the Statue of Liberty that bears a plaque reading "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Or maybe its just sad.