Comments? Opinions?
I think it's bullshit. Some of the clothing they are proposing to ban has been a part of religious ceremonies and cultures for thousands of years, and now France has all of a sudden decided that they might pursue a ban on such "deviant" behavior. Well la-de-freakin'-da. Hell while they're at it, they should ban women with hairy pits, Jerry Lewis and being fucking French.
quote:
Apart from the veil, the commission also investigated issues such as Muslim women refusing treatment by male doctors, pupils challenging teachers about the Holocaust and a "new anti-Semitism" among disaffected Muslim youths.
Oh I love this part. Yeah real smooth France. It'll obviously damage your porn industry if you can't get Muslim women to spread their legs for voyeur cams in doctor offices. And pupils challenging teachers about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, while it doesn't go into detail about what exactly is being challenged, last time I checked having an opinion wasn't illegal, fucktards.
France: Forebearer to Fascism?
It's not something people hear about.
The U.S. does the same thing. You cannot have a class taught in a public school by someone dressed as a rabbi or a cardinal, because it gives implications to the students of the class as to which religion is "most supported" in that particular classroom. They're not trying to ban them from public, they're not trying to ban them altogether. In fact, they're making it a point to be more multicultural in their holidays off from school at the same time as they're considering this rule. The U.S. doesn't even do that, instead simply allowing time off for those people celebrating holidays outside the mainstream.
Private schools have the option of being religious, public schools shouldn't be. What's the problem here?
=+=
As for the "new Anti-Semitism" that they're worried about, maybe you didn't notice in the news this summer that several synagogues in downtown Paris were firebombed. I'd call it an issue, and one that needs to be looked at. And if they're reporting abuse of people in the schools over it, such that people have been forced out of school systems due to fears of repercussions, I'd call that a dire need for review.
Don't get so caught up in your anti-French sentiment that you can't look at the issue dispassionately. Nothing in there is unusual or outrageous.
quote:
The commission was also shocked by cases of discrimination against women and said sexual equality was one of the guiding principles it used for reaching its conclusions.Schwartz said Muslim girls said they were pressured into wearing veils by family and "outside groups" -- a reference to activists officials say are promoting strict religious practices among French Muslims, who are of mostly North African origin.
"Many asked for protection from the state, that the state forbids the wearing of religious symbols in school to guarantee their protection and their individual freedom," he said.
Read the whole thing.
God, I hate France.
quote:
Leopold, the Voice of Reason probably says this to all the girls:
Because the best way to raise our children to be sensitive and tolerant is to ensure they're not exposed to what other's lifestyles are really like.God, I hate France.
Dude, chill. It's not like a lack of any of the things under the proposed ban would retard their social and religious nature.
quote:
The Body Snatchers version of El Imán Grande! wrote this:
Dude, chill. It's not like a lack of any of the things under the proposed ban would retard their social and religious nature.
You're right. It's already retarded enough!
SACRE MERDE! HI-YO!
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Out of a possible 10, Sean scored a straight 1 with:
Just sounds like France trying to be important again.
quote:
El Imán Grande! wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Dude, chill. It's not like a lack of any of the things under the proposed ban would retard their social and religious nature.
It's not the action, it's the principle. If there were a way to justify this as JUST being "separation of church and state" I'd have no problem with it, but there isn't. No one was having the religious values each of the objects symbolized forced upon them; they were just there, for the people who already used them.
Which means the motivation for this, seemingly, is "to stop people from getting offended", a logic that pisses me off exceptionally, for two reasons.
1) We *should* be offended on a regular basis. The ability to be offended is one of the most valuable things we have. It challenges us to be tolerant of something we dislike, and it teaches us something about another person, thing or culture that we didn't previously now. It makes us stronger people.
2) It's a pandora's box. Once you open the "this does/could offend someone, so we'll change it" door, you can't close it. Look at how things progressed in the American school system, for cripes' sake. At my junior high school, we weren't allowed to wear red, because people identified that with gangs, and they didn't want that kind of negative influence. The moment you start to make exceptions, everyone starts to want them.
I'm not pissed over what they've done; I'm pissed over the fact that something so useless is so potentially dangerous.
quote:
Leopold, the Voice of Reason enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
It's not the action, it's the principle. If there were a way to justify this as JUST being "separation of church and state" I'd have no problem with it, but there isn't. No one was having the religious values each of the objects symbolized forced upon them; they were just there, for the people who already used them.Which means the motivation for this, seemingly, is "to stop people from getting offended", a logic that pisses me off exceptionally, for two reasons.
1) We *should* be offended on a regular basis. The ability to be offended is one of the most valuable things we have. It challenges us to be tolerant of something we dislike, and it teaches us something about another person, thing or culture that we didn't previously now. It makes us stronger people.
2) It's a pandora's box. Once you open the "this does/could offend someone, so we'll change it" door, you can't close it. Look at how things progressed in the American school system, for cripes' sake. At my junior high school, we weren't allowed to wear red, because people identified that with gangs, and they didn't want that kind of negative influence. The moment you start to make exceptions, everyone starts to want them.
I'm not pissed over what they've done; I'm pissed over the fact that something so useless is so potentially dangerous.
The religious items are not going to be banned because they might offend someone. That's not even in the article. They're going to be banned because they aren't supposed to be there.
"Many asked for protection from the state, that the state forbids the wearing of religious symbols in school to guarantee their protection and their individual freedom." If the state forbids the wearing of religious symbols in the public schools, people will not be forced to wear certain symbols in those public schools. And, since "Muslim girls said they were pressured into wearing veils by family and 'outside groups' -- a reference to activists officials say are promoting strict religious practices among French Muslims, who are of mostly North African origin..." there obviously is a necessity for that. If people feel threatened based upon how they display their religion in the schools, there needs to be something done so that there will not be grounds upon which to threaten people.
Jeez. It's not like they're doing this specifically to piss off religious folk. They're doing this because there is a need, as determined by the study they ran, for them to consider the action. [ 12-11-2003: Message edited by: Drakkenmaw ]
quote:
Leopold, the Voice of Reason was listening to Cher while typing:
2) It's a pandora's box. Once you open the "this does/could offend someone, so we'll change it" door, you can't close it. Look at how things progressed in the American school system, for cripes' sake. At my junior high school, we weren't allowed to wear red, because people identified that with gangs, and they didn't want that kind of negative influence. The moment you start to make exceptions, everyone starts to want them.
You can potentially get into trouble at my school over sky blue for that reason.
Depends on whether the teachers give a damn or if the administration notices.
Also, we are not allowed to wear "Dickies" brand for some reason. I do not know why.
quote:
"This anti-Semitism is real in our country," commission secretary Remy Schwartz said. "We found children have to leave public schools in some areas because they are not physically secure... This has profoundly shocked the commission."
The part you cited was the secondary reason; this was the primary. That's right: because there is a dangerous amount of religious intolerance in public schools, they're removing the religion. In other words, they are attempting to keep dangerous elements from being offended. Rather than, oh, prosecuting people who commit hate crimes and punishing the students who act out of religious intolerance, they're just going to say "okay, if this is going to cause problems, we're going to pretend it doesn't exist."
The basic point we can both agree on is that the problem is one of (a) intolerance and (b) incongruence. Some people hate the religions to a dangerous degree, and some religions force their practicing youths to do dangerous things (in a sense). In both cases, the problem is centered NOT around the religion, but rather, around people's perception of the religion, and how that perception is unhealthily warped.
So how does removing the religion at all solve the problem?
This is a quick fix to a problem for which there IS no quick fix. This in no way stops people from doing the things this law is here for--it just takes away their ability to. If anything, this exacerbates the problem in the long run, because now the people who have these anti-semitic, anti-catholic or anti-islamic feelings won't be confronted for it at theire earlier and more influential age--and hence, they'll carry it into their adult lives, where it's more likely to be more serious--and potentially more deadly.
This is a solution to the problem, yeah, but it's the wrong one.
Once you learn that everyone has value, no matter what they believe in, it's an easy thing to deal with overt divisions of peoples. But, before that lesson is ingrained, it's a tad more difficult. Socially, it is better to have a neutral environment to build from.
It's up to the students. It's their state of mind on the topic, and how they do or do not act upon that state of mind, that dictates the neutrality and tolerance of the school. And at the moment, that state of mind is very clearly in a state of flux.
If they had stood up for the separation of church and state absolutely when they STARTED the school system, then the religiously-neutral argument would be valid. But once students have formed opinions on the topic, be they positive or negative, you can't stop them simply by removing the religious elements. That doesn't foster neutrality or tolerance; in fact, I believe it makes it worse, because it removes the displays of the religion that are connected to actual people, rather than taught through a textbook. They're taking away the living human examples of the religions. That leaves two things: the teacher-taught curriculum, which the majority of public school students already have a disliking of, and the state of mind the students currently have--now with much less visible arguments to the opposite.
It's too late to backpedal, man; they've gotta see it through. It'd be much harder to confront the issue and punish intolerance, yeah, but in the long run, it's the only way to avoid more issues, and WORSE issues, in the future.
Also, I'm confused: I thought you were arguing on the side of the separation of church and state earlier in the thread. If you agree with that, how can you agree with making religious holidays that only apply to specific religions universal holidays?
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Mr. Parcelan wrote:
Fuck France.
He spoke for all of America.
quote:
A sleep deprived Broadzilla stammered:
He spoke for all of America.
If there was any intelligence in the world, I would speak for everyone.
quote:
Bajah said this about your mom:
LAUGH AT MY GODDAMN COMIC STRIP!
omg intellectual property theft omg omg.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Captain Planet:
Leopold, you're forgetting one critical part of this whole equation. There are parents that are raising their kids to hate Jews. There are Muslims moving to the country and not changing their ways and raising their children much as they would have in the Middle East. It isn't like you are born with some magic 'I hate Jews' gene, it is taught. This is all to protect the safty of the students at their schools.
I'm not forgetting that, though. It's the real issue. I'm saying this is the wrong solution. Think of it this way:
There's a city (let's call it "Not France"). It is populated. Within this population is a very small, but very vocal, minority. They are vocal about the issue of people who wear t-shirts in public. Whenever someone wears a t-shirt in public, they raise an outcry. There is a smaller group within this minority that, should they come across someone wearing a t-shirt, harasses the person, and a smaller group within that group that beats the crap out of the person. It's foreseeable that someone may, in fact, die.
Think of this as though it were a real situation.
If someone said "alright, it's officially a city law: no one can wear t-shirts in public" be honest, everyone would hate it. It's the stupidest thing on earth; why should the majority have to suffer just to appease the obviously foolish minority? Why isn't the dangerous, law-breaking, person-hating minority being punished?
This is that situation. There is a minority that hates people for their religion, as you so noted, and a minority within the minority that makes it dangerous for them to show their religion--so why is the governmental response "instead of doing the hard thing and punishing people for breaking the law and discriminating against people for expressing their religious beliefs, we're going to simply stop displaying the religious symbols"?
You're saying "it makes it harder for the hateful ones to pick out the ones they hate": this is true and more dangerous. Because the hateful ones will no longer have specific targets to focus the hate on, they begin to generalize. I can guarantee you that in the near future, random Middle-Eastern students will feel some of the brunt of this hatred, simply because they look like they "fit the bill."
My point is this: this solution in no way addresses the real problem, which is that a lot of students and their parents are dangerously prejudiced. If you disagree, answer one question:
"It isn't like you are born with some magic 'I hate Jews' gene, it is taught."
How does this stop this from happening?
Now, I don't see anyone getting upset over people unable to wear crosses. Why, because we've pretty much cycled out the need or care for having them or displaying them. We don't care if someone says we can't wear crosses in schools, except for the more fervent among us we'd be like "sure, whatever." But oh, no now the same standards are being applied to other religious groups, quick everyone come to their aid and defend something we don't even care about for ourselves.
Oh, god we might upset some Jewish and Muslim people by not allowing them to wear their religious garb in school.Now how many Jewish people do you see wearing skullcaps in school anywyas? So not really a problem there, and they're not banning the wearing of like necklaces that might have a small cross, star, or crescent on them. Just the outwear and clothing. Really the only group that would be be effected to any type of wide degree would be muslim women.
Big deal if they can't wear a headwrap. It just means that people are going to have to realize that in today's world religion has an accepted place outside of secular institutions. Now, I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem if the teachers were told they can't wear them. Of course not it could be seen as an endorsement by the state/school/instiution/etc for that religion. But when disallow the wearing for the students everyone gets uppity. WHy isn't there a mass cry over the denial of hats in school wear? Why because they have no religious conotation, its when we put religion on things we go retarded. Who cares, you can put it on when you go outside.
Oh no, god will strike you down for being a bad person if you don't wear a skullcap or hajib. But wait we lie, steal, cheat on people, kill, eat meat, don't keep the sabbath holy, don't observe periods of fasting, don't always attend religious services, take the lord's name in vain, might not go on a pilgramage to the Kaba, might not pray five times daily, might not always go to temple, might show more skin than is prescribed by islamic law, and the list goes on and we blow up over headwear? Seems a bit hypocritical don't ya think? And its not like they can't wear them the rest of the day or go to a private school. Just equal standards for all religions in a school, yea what a crack pot idea...
quote:
Leopold, the Voice of Reason attempted to be funny by writing:
While I agree, Ace, the problem is that this isn't being enforced because they're trying to complete the "separation of church and state" thing, it's being enforced because of dangerous amounts of religious intolerance.
Yea but its much easier to do a across the board ban of such possible triggers than to try and uncover and prevent crimes from occuring. Law enforcement's role is not the prevention of crime.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Ace in the Spade said:
Yea but its much easier to do a across the board ban of such possible triggers than to try and uncover and prevent crimes from occuring. Law enforcement's role is not the prevention of crime.
...
What?
The law enforcement's role is to keep the peace. That means taking an active interest in things that threaten the safety of the society and its individuals. Does this somehow not fall under that banner?
You're right: it is much easier to do an across-the-board ban of such possible triggers.
And it also doesn't do a single thing to actually *solve the problem*.
It just makes it easier to ignore.
I think that the solution the French are putting forth is perfectly viable considering the nature of the problem. There is no perfect fix to it, and this is a perfectly good patch.
People who want to commit hate crimes aren't going to stop just because their targets are no longer as clear-cut as "wearing a yarmulka" or "not wearing a yarmulka"; if anything, not having a concentrated target will almost inevitably make the problem worse, as the standards for what constitutes a target will simply widen. If the hate doesn't go away, the crime doesn't go away, and for that reason this solution, in my opinion, doesn't work.
There's no EASY long-term solution. There's no solution that will have results that today's students will feel the effects of, or maybe even the next generation's. It could take years. But there IS a solution:
Teach them.
You noted that the home is a greater influence: this isn't true. In my opinion, in most cases, the two greatest influences on a child/teenager are evenly balanced: the home environment, and the social environment. If the home environment is one that fosters intolerance, the social environment has to balance this out: it has to be one that fosters acceptance.
Leave the religious symbols in the school, give them no special treatment, and just as one would for a Muslim student discriminating against a Catholic student, punish the prejudiced. Bring in speakers, not just for one religion but for each of them, and have them speak. Have them speak together. Highlight those similarities between the various faiths. I respect and agree with the separation of Church and State, but if if the Church is a problem for the State, then you've gotta talk about it. You can't ignore it and expect it to go away.
It sucks. And some people are going to get hurt. But it's the only way. Ease students toward the right direction by example. Cut down on the prejudiced vein of thought in the early years, so that the students don't pass it along to THEIR children.
A patch stops a wound from bleeding--but it also keeps it from sealing up healthily.
quote:
Quoth Drakkenmaw:
It seems like they're going out of their way to bring alternate faiths into the foreground, by considering recognizing multiple religious holidays in the system. It provides an opportunity to discuss them with others in a classroom setting, and convey the message that they all have relative value. But it is best to start these sorts of "mini-lessons on tolerance" from a neutral ground. Similar to online, where you don't know specifics about people unless they allow it, a religion-blind school environment would create a setting where people would be encouraged to mix freely instead of having that as a divisive factor.Once you learn that everyone has value, no matter what they believe in, it's an easy thing to deal with overt divisions of peoples. But, before that lesson is ingrained, it's a tad more difficult. Socially, it is better to have a neutral environment to build from.
Flawed assumption.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Bloodsage said:
Flawed assumption.
Assumption I believe in. 
Everyone has some sort of value in the grand state of things.
quote:
Drakkenmaw said this about your mom:
Assumption I believe in.Everyone has some sort of value in the grand state of things.
Wrong. How do you explain worthless creatures like Pandas, Manatees and the Swiss?
quote:
How.... Leopold, the Voice of Reason.... uughhhhhh:
*Snip*
The problem is, you're promoting a solution which has been tried before - and it has failed before. Many, many, many times.
There has never been a situation in society, modern or ancient, in which predjudices among certain people failed to bring about destructive or violent actions against the people they were predjudiced against. People as a group essentially must have an enemy - and they will make one, if one is not provided for them. It seems that such is the case here in this thread, in more ways than one.
Trying to solve the problem of predjudice is a matter for people, not governments. Because you can't legislate "don't hate each other, children." You can't require that people be all kind and wonderful to each other. So you must deal with things pragmatically. If people are feeling threatened at school, you remove the grounds on which people make that threat. If people are feeling pressured to dress in a certain manner because other people are making them, and those people who are intimidated into it are complaining, you answer their complaint in the only manner you can; because it's impossible to go "don't subtly use your authority in an unfair manner," there's only a certain number of options you can take.
And the people are looking to the government to take an option, in this case. You can be certain that, if the government did nothing which could have a palpable effect on the threats and actions in an immediate time-span... the voters would find someone who WOULD do something about it. You can't blame the government for listening to its subjects, and doing what they wish - they want a solution, they get one. It's not an optimum, but short of being able to require that people love and care for each other... it's the only option readily available to solve the needs of the populace and answer their demands. And thus, it is taken.
If it has negative after-effects, I'm sure some legislation will be put forth to answer that as well. Which, again, won't be the best long-reaching grand-vision option available... but it'll work okay, and be acceptable.
Such is the nature of government.
In today's world of politics, people look to their politicians for nothing more than the occasional law; in fact, most of them are seen as LESS virtuous than the average man, yet still sought for leadership. This is the other extreme: it, too, is bad.
There are precious few presidents, in the modern age of the United States, that have tried to be leaders, rather than just lawmakers, and their impact has been the strongest on the nation. Despite that numerous other presidents have done more or been more worldly, people remember Kennedy (granted, the assassination makes him a special case). Despite the Iran-Contra fiasco, Reagan is still considered one of the premiere examples of presidential calibre. Why? These men weren't the greatest lawmakers. In fact, a lot of people would say that they weren't even very good men. So what makes them special?
It's sad to realize, but the truth is, the majority of today's leaders never bother to try leading in the way that COUNTS. They never appeal emotionally to the people. Too many leaders become something different than people when they do ascend to power, and that's when they lose the single greatest power they possess: the power to suggest. The ability to emotionally influence your populace is by far the greatest any politician has, and yet so very few use it--and an unfortunate amount of the ones who do use it for all the wrong things.
Not that I'm saying it'd solve the problem. I guess I'm just wondering aloud what good it could do if politicians actually tried to lead by example and emotion when it came to things like this.
You are correct on both accounts, but I believe you're missing important points in your conclusions with each. You're right: it comes up, time and time again, regardless of what the people or the state does. I don't believe, however, that this is a bad thing, because each time, we learn something. We have a problem with religion; we fight over it, and end the issue. There's a lot of prejudice left over, but over the next several hundred years, society comes to terms with it and eventually becomes more accepting. We have a problem with slavery; we fight over it, and end the issue. There are very clearly racist reprecussions, and over the next several hundred years, society molds them, deals with them, and eventually irons out the wrinkles. Problems like these happen in damn near EVERY country, and in fact are doing so right now in many places on Earth. And after they do, one of the most amazing things happens:
They very rarely do again. Sure, there's still conflict, and sure, there's still anger. But never on the same scale. Sometimes it waves up and down in intensity, but overall its path is a downward one. At risk of being corny, I strongly believe that a positively-founded concept, rooted inherently in good, while easily halted in the short-term, is indestructible in the long-term. Vice versa, I believe a negatively-founded concept, such as an institution of racism, inevitably falls. It needs to be struck down on the large-scale at first...and thankfully, we had a World War for that. After that, after it has been turned down on the institutional scale, it falls to a societal problem--one that only a society of individuals can handle.
And that's why this irks me so: I don't feel that this *is* a solution. I don't feel that this line of legislation provides any kind of future benefit. We both agree that the only forseeable solution to the problem of prejudice lies with a mature and understanding populace, which France apparently lacks, and so I return again to the simple question:
How does this law at all help the public become more capable of dealing with this problem?
I don't see the benefit. It seems that it'll put more students at risk, as it leaves a dangerous stereotype unchecked, and it keeps the people who will be ruling tomorrow's France from being exposed to the religions in the most impressionable years of their youth.
It may be the nature of government...but that don't make it good.
It fulfills its obligation in this way because it solves it in the simplest manner. Which is how government is meant to run, solving the problem as quickly and easily as possible in response to public outcry. I do not believe the government has an obligation to do more, and I do not believe the government should even be allowed to actively attempt to shape the populace. Government is meant to respond to the will of the people, not guide the peoples' will.
A good part of it is that I follow the Libertarian viewpoint. People should help themselves. If people view that there is a great flaw in society, they should fix it. They should not try to get others to fix it for them. The only obligation of government is creating an atmosphere in which people can freely operate without harm from other people. It should do little else. If the people want something else done, they are free to do it themselves.
