| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Brainfried" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2004 11:17:46 PM |
| Object: |
Head scarves |
I'm looking to solidify my stance on head scarves in schools.
I think that France is being short-sighted in its banning of head scarves.
Rather than unity, they will get fragmentation and grief. One must be
very careful when seperating church and state. I think that France is
forcing unity and atheism on Muslims which will backfire.
To me, religion, or lack thereof is a PERSONAL thing. So long as you do
not force your beliefs on others (like organized school prayer), you can
pray all you want (or not) and wear what you want (within some reason, the
knife-carrying of the Sikh's for example is out-of-bounds).
I did find this concerning the knives, which looks to be a good compromise.
http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/n061297b.html
"Under the agreement, the kirpan blade must be no longer than 2.5 inches.
It must also be dulled and sewn securely into a sheath and further secured
in a cloth pouch which the Sikh community in Livingstone designed to
accommodate the District's concerns over safety. The parties further
agreed to give the District limited inspection rights to be sure that the
restrictions are being followed."
Failure to tolerate other people's beliefs ultimately results in
intolerrance of your beliefs and fuels the fire of fundamentalists. It's
extremely short-sighted. As an atheist, I think that forcing people to
give up their superstitious beliefs causes them to add more bricks to
their wall and ultimately result in more people clinging (now more
tightly) to their superstitious beliefs. It's counterproductive.
So long as they're not a danger to society, personal freedom should reign
supreme.
I think the lady in Florida who refused to remove her cover (burka I
think) for her driver's license is a danger to society. (there would be
no picture of her face should she run afoul of the law) They later
revoked her license and told her to come in for a new photograph. That's
reasonable.
Head scarves are reasonable too. I personally disagree with them. I
disagree with what they stand for. But. I'll get a lot farther
tolerating them.
Anyone care to chime in?
.
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 01:57:48 PM |
|
|
"Brainfried" <no@way.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.10.05.17.46.344000@way.com...
I'm looking to solidify my stance on head scarves in schools.
<snip for brevity>
This really is a French thing I think.
Chirac is on the political right, no problem politically.
There is no law to create.
It is about enforcing existing law.
The French just hate clerics, and clerics telling people what to do,
be they Islamists or Chistics.
Also it is not such a religious thing, as the fascist end of Islam and the
BBC make out.
Most French Islamic woman don't wear them, and are more worried
about having it force on them by the clerics.
In Turkey, they ban the scarf completely, even though everyone is
Islamic.
Why, because it is historically seen as sign of militantism.
Did you know that in Egypt, after the Luxor terrorist bombing, lots of
poor
people lost their lively hood. Scarf wearing Islamic women were attacked
by other woman, blaming them for their plight.
It certainly is not a requirement of Islam to wear the scarf, or any other
headgear.
Will it back fire.
I hope not.
Nice to see a politician who was actually elected by the people
telling a bunch of ignorant clerics who stir up little school girls,
to get on their bikes.
--
Goodness Godless
When I was young there was no respect for the young, and now that I am old
there is no respect for the old. I missed out coming and going.
J.B. Priestley
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 12:29:17 AM |
|
|
"Brainfried" <no@way.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.10.05.17.46.344000@way.com...
I'm looking to solidify my stance on head scarves in schools.
I think that France is being short-sighted in its banning of head scarves.
Rather than unity, they will get fragmentation and grief. One must be
very careful when seperating church and state. I think that France is
forcing unity and atheism on Muslims which will backfire.
To me, religion, or lack thereof is a PERSONAL thing. So long as you do
not force your beliefs on others (like organized school prayer), you can
pray all you want (or not) and wear what you want (within some reason, the
knife-carrying of the Sikh's for example is out-of-bounds).
I did find this concerning the knives, which looks to be a good
compromise.
http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/n061297b.html
"Under the agreement, the kirpan blade must be no longer than 2.5 inches.
It must also be dulled and sewn securely into a sheath and further secured
in a cloth pouch which the Sikh community in Livingstone designed to
accommodate the District's concerns over safety. The parties further
agreed to give the District limited inspection rights to be sure that the
restrictions are being followed."
Failure to tolerate other people's beliefs ultimately results in
intolerrance of your beliefs and fuels the fire of fundamentalists. It's
extremely short-sighted. As an atheist, I think that forcing people to
give up their superstitious beliefs causes them to add more bricks to
their wall and ultimately result in more people clinging (now more
tightly) to their superstitious beliefs. It's counterproductive.
So long as they're not a danger to society, personal freedom should reign
supreme.
I think the lady in Florida who refused to remove her cover (burka I
think) for her driver's license is a danger to society. (there would be
no picture of her face should she run afoul of the law) They later
revoked her license and told her to come in for a new photograph. That's
reasonable.
Head scarves are reasonable too. I personally disagree with them. I
disagree with what they stand for. But. I'll get a lot farther
tolerating them.
Anyone care to chime in?
HERE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!........no disagreement with ya here, the world would
be going another step backwards if the French goverment adopt that approach.
But, can you honestly see them pass that legislation to make it be law
there??????? I don't think that has happened yet.
I can see turmoil (and justifiably so) if they go against the majorities
wishes and I can't imagine the majority of the French public would be for
the banning of the religious symbols.
As you said it is forcing a belief down someones throat just the same as
forcing someone to believe in a religion.......no difference at all.
Unfortunately, it seems to be a similar thing to the Iraq war question. Most
of the public (at least here in Oz) were not for going to war with Iraq, yet
the government went ahead and sent troops. And let's face it Britain was a
similar case. You really have to wonder when the government overrules the
masses wishes when it comes to substantial decisions like these that we have
mentioned.
There should be revolt if they try to introduce something like France are
thinking of doing here in Australia.............It's DAMN
UnAustralian........ ;-)
I for one would protest it with all my might. (and I don't wear any crosses
or kippah and definitely not a hijab! lol) but damn if people shouldn't be
able to do whatever they F'n please as long as they don't hurt anyone else!
Keep your beliefs going in that direction brudda........looks like yer on
the right tram!
Thanks,
Frank
(replace fran with frank to contact direct)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 03:15:31 AM |
|
|
Le Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:29:17 +0000, Frank Hammond a écrit :
I can see turmoil (and justifiably so) if they go against the majorities
wishes and I can't imagine the majority of the French public would be for
the banning of the religious symbols.
It is.
Go learn some history.
We have the lowest church attendance and religious belief rate of any
western country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 03:26:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:15:31 +0100 in alt.atheism, Divin Marquis
(Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Le Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:29:17 +0000, Frank Hammond a écrit :
I can see turmoil (and justifiably so) if they go against the majorities
wishes and I can't imagine the majority of the French public would be for
the banning of the religious symbols.
It is.
Go learn some history.
We have the lowest church attendance and religious belief rate of any
western country.
What, lower than us, which is to say, perfidious Albion?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 12:35:07 PM |
|
|
Le Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:26:26 +0000, Therion Ware a écrit :
Go learn some history.
We have the lowest church attendance and religious belief rate of any
western country.
What, lower than us, which is to say, perfidious Albion?
Last I checked, by far.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 04:32:08 AM |
|
|
"Divin Marquis" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.10.09.15.31.446775@127.0.0.1...
Le Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:29:17 +0000, Frank Hammond a écrit :
I can see turmoil (and justifiably so) if they go against the majorities
wishes and I can't imagine the majority of the French public would be
for
the banning of the religious symbols.
It is.
Go learn some history.
We have the lowest church attendance and religious belief rate of any
western country.
My comment has nothing to do with history as it has to do with current
public opinions about what most people believe is right and what is wrong.
Irrespective of having a low church attendance it doesn't mean that the
majority of the current public's opinion would be towards introducing that
as a law, now does it????
But, in all fairness to your comment about having the lowest church
attendance I did do a quick google then to see if there were any current
polls and to my surprise it does seem a law to be supported by the majority
of French http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/17/france.headscarves/
So there you go.....I did say I couldn't imagine the current French
population would be for it (I did say imagine as I didn't know before for
sure) but I can safely say one thing about the French now that I didn't know
before your post...................................you frogs are paranoid
about clothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Merci,
Frank
(replace fran with frank to contact direct)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 12:36:25 PM |
|
|
Le Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:32:08 +0000, Frank Hammond a écrit :
you frogs are
paranoid about clothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Better than be paranoid about tittie nudity, eh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 07:40:15 PM |
|
|
"Divin Marquis" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.10.18.36.25.973327@127.0.0.1...
Le Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:32:08 +0000, Frank Hammond a écrit :
you frogs are
paranoid about clothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Better than be paranoid about tittie nudity, eh.
lol............true.
Looks like it is going to pass the legislation according to the news this
morning.
Will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Merci.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 01:06:27 AM |
|
|
Brainfried says
I'm looking to solidify my stance on head scarves in schools.
Why not acquire some knowledge, then go where it leads you?
I think that France is being short-sighted in its banning of head scarves.
You appear to have no clue as to what France has banned and absolutely no clue
as to where.
Rather than unity, they will get fragmentation and grief.
Do you have any idea what they have now?
One must be
very careful when seperating church and state.
Once again, you appear to have no clue as to what France has banned and
absolutely no clue as to where.
I think that France is
forcing unity and atheism on Muslims which will backfire.
Atheism? ROTFLMAO!!!!!
You are massively misinformed! You have absolutely no idea what you're talking
about.
Go find out what's really happening. If and when you do, come back and we can
talk about it.
<snip uninformed rant>
SHEEEEEEEEEESH!!!
:-|
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 01:49:55 AM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <jenny6833a@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
news:20040210020627.26465.00001846@mb-m07.aol.com...
Brainfried says
I'm looking to solidify my stance on head scarves in schools.
Why not acquire some knowledge, then go where it leads you?
I think that France is being short-sighted in its banning of head
scarves.
You appear to have no clue as to what France has banned and absolutely no
clue
as to where.
Oh, yes they do have an idea....as they said earlier "in schools" and the
hijab IS one of the items France has been contemplating barring the wearing
of
Rather than unity, they will get fragmentation and grief.
Do you have any idea what they have now?
Even if they currently have "fragmentation and grief" we can fairly consider
that the posters opinion was to mean MORE fragmentation and grief.
One must be
very careful when seperating church and state.
Once again, you appear to have no clue as to what France has banned and
absolutely no clue as to where.
As said earlier, the poster obviously knows what the story is about.
I think that France is
forcing unity and atheism on Muslims which will backfire.
Atheism? ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Well it certainly is pushing in that direction if the government wishes to
FORCE people to do that (and it would cause more angst and resolve (unity)
amongst Muslims)
You are massively misinformed! You have absolutely no idea what you're
talking
about.
massively misinformed?? You sound like you are sufferring from PMT (or PMS
depending how you wish to say it). Is the poster an ex-partner that dumped
you or something coz you act like it.
Go find out what's really happening. If and when you do, come back and we
can
talk about it.
<snip uninformed rant>
SHEEEEEEEEEESH!!!
:-|
Jenny
Go try some Lithium Orotate and see if that helps then come back and we can
talk about it
SHEEEEEEEEEESH!!!
Thanks,
Frank
(replace fran with frank to contact direct)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 12:24:54 PM |
|
|
I think that if a principle were enforced that religion is not an
excuse to deviate from the school dress-code, that would have the
desired affect, and not backfire.
--
Iain
Brainfried <no@way.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.02.10.05.17.46.344000@way.com>...
I'm looking to solidify my stance on head scarves in schools.
I think that France is being short-sighted in its banning of head scarves.
Rather than unity, they will get fragmentation and grief. One must be
very careful when seperating church and state. I think that France is
forcing unity and atheism on Muslims which will backfire.
To me, religion, or lack thereof is a PERSONAL thing. So long as you do
not force your beliefs on others (like organized school prayer), you can
pray all you want (or not) and wear what you want (within some reason, the
knife-carrying of the Sikh's for example is out-of-bounds).
I did find this concerning the knives, which looks to be a good compromise.
http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/n061297b.html
"Under the agreement, the kirpan blade must be no longer than 2.5 inches.
It must also be dulled and sewn securely into a sheath and further secured
in a cloth pouch which the Sikh community in Livingstone designed to
accommodate the District's concerns over safety. The parties further
agreed to give the District limited inspection rights to be sure that the
restrictions are being followed."
Failure to tolerate other people's beliefs ultimately results in
intolerrance of your beliefs and fuels the fire of fundamentalists. It's
extremely short-sighted. As an atheist, I think that forcing people to
give up their superstitious beliefs causes them to add more bricks to
their wall and ultimately result in more people clinging (now more
tightly) to their superstitious beliefs. It's counterproductive.
So long as they're not a danger to society, personal freedom should reign
supreme.
I think the lady in Florida who refused to remove her cover (burka I
think) for her driver's license is a danger to society. (there would be
no picture of her face should she run afoul of the law) They later
revoked her license and told her to come in for a new photograph. That's
reasonable.
Head scarves are reasonable too. I personally disagree with them. I
disagree with what they stand for. But. I'll get a lot farther
tolerating them.
Anyone care to chime in?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 02:04:32 PM |
|
|
(Iain) says
I think that if a principle were enforced that religion is not an
excuse to deviate from the school dress-code, that would have the
desired affect, and not backfire.
France doesn't have a school dress code -- not in the sense of school uniforms
-- and what dress code there is is pretty permissive. France used to have a
very rigid dress code -- state mandated uniforms -- but dropped it in the 70s
(IIRC), and would prefer not to have to reinstate it.
The reinstatement of uniforms is what the current measure is intended to avoid.
I'm not surprised that some of the opinions expressed here (I agree with yours,
iain) are way off base.
The English-language press has told only a small part of the story -- usually
speaking only of Muslim head scarves instead of the wider concept of religious
symbology and almost totally ignoring what's really been going on in the
schools and in the communities.
The Reuters article today is the first I've seen that even mentions the guts of
the matter -- and those mentions are pretty selective and superficial.
Here are some key excerpts. My comments are in [ ...].
"An overwhelming majority of France's National Assembly voted on Tuesday to ban
religious emblems in state schools, a measure Paris wants 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 from state schools and threaten pupils who insisted on
wearing them with expulsion."
"The government insists the ban does not single out any religion, but cabinet
ministers admit its main targets are the Islamic headscarves and anti-Semitic
remarks from Muslim pupils that teachers say have become more frequent in
recent years."
""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."
[Does anyone here disagree with that?]
"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.""
"The issue goes to the heart of France's self-image as a secular state that
keeps faith out of state schools and services to ensure no religion dominates
or suffers discrimination."
[Does anyone here disagree with that?]
"The ban has wide public support but leaders of France's five million Muslims
call it discriminatory. It has provoked criticism from Islamic and Christian
leaders abroad, including Pope John Paul."
[Of course. All those who want the public schools to be an evangelical
battleground will obviously oppose the new law. So will those who want to use
religious symbols as the means to enforce rigid segregation by religion.]
[It's worth noting that Catholic authorities have, of recent years, been
encouraging the wearing of HUGE crosses by school kids.]
"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 up into "militant religious communities.""
"The ban would also make clear pupils must follow the full official curriculum
and cannot object to or skip classes for religious reasons, he said."
"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, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend physical
education."
[Also refuse to be examined/treated by the school nurse or doctor, refuse to
learn to swim which is a national requirement, refuse to mingle with other
students during lunch and other breaks, etc.]
[What you see in the schools themselves is a totally rigid segregation of
Muslim girls from the rest of French society. It's the same on the streets.
You see gender-mixed groups of 'french' kids walking to school as well as
groups of 'french' boys and groups of 'french' girls. What you NEVER see are
Muslim girls walking/chatting with 'french' kids. And, believe me, it's not
the 'french' who are maintaining that segregation. It's the Muslim males
riding herd and punishing any girl who dares to break the no-contact rule
imposed by Muslim males.]
[There's also been a major compulsion/retribution thing going on. The girls
have no choice whether to integrate or not. Most of their families don't
either. If a Muslim girl does *not* wear the scarf in school or *does*
cooperate with the school curriculum or *does* associate with non-Muslims at
school or on the street, the Muslim males report her to the local Ayatollah who
takes action against both the family and the girl. Such girls are routinely
beaten, raped, and disfigured by gangs of young Muslim males. There's been a
major mafia-like enforcement operation going on.]
"They have also reported that Muslim pupils sometimes repeat anti-Semitic
themes they see on Arabic satellite television. Jewish families are
increasingly switching their children from state schools to private Jewish
schools to avoid harrassment."
[In the states, many school districts have avoided going to school uniforms but
*have* banned gang identification symbols such as those of the Bloods and the
Crips. To a very large degree, that's exactly what the French are setting out
to do. But, in the French situation, the Muslim girls are forced to wear the
symbols to identify them to the enforcers.]
[I'm not even attempting to tell the larger story here. My main point is that
this whole thing goes far beyond the mere wearing of religious symbology which
is how the english-language press has painted it.]
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried Sysadmin" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 01:16:41 PM |
|
|
On 10 Feb 2004 10:24:54 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
I think that if a principle were enforced that religion is not an
excuse to deviate from the school dress-code, that would have the
desired affect, and not backfire.
School dress-code as defined by who, using what criteria?
IMHO, rules must exist for a reason.
To you, I would suppose it would be acceptable that you'd have to wear
a head scarf it that was the school rules...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
11 Feb 2004 01:12:17 PM |
|
|
Brainfried Sysadmin <no@way.com> wrote in message news:<1cbi205kt7rqvkaskfacgjp6jp9ct36c9c@4ax.com>...
On 10 Feb 2004 10:24:54 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
I think that if a principle were enforced that religion is not an
excuse to deviate from the school dress-code, that would have the
desired affect, and not backfire.
School dress-code as defined by who, using what criteria?
By a fashion designer, and the criteria of what is a smart looking
uniform.
IMHO, rules must exist for a reason.
To you, I would suppose it would be acceptable that you'd have to wear
a head scarf it that was the school rules...
Ties were part of the uniform at my school. Were they headscarfs, I
would feel similarly obliged to wear them, although would rather I
weren't.
--
Iain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
11 Feb 2004 01:08:23 PM |
|
|
In British schools which have little or no dress code, soccer strips
are nonetheless considered extremely inappropriate. In northern
Europe, and Britain in particular, the issue of time-honoured
ethnically determined soccer teams is highly memetic amongst some
cliques, and is more of a religion than a game.
I expect that the slightly less scatterbrained French think of
religious symbols as similarly vulgar
--
Iain
Brainfried <no@way.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.02.10.05.17.46.344000@way.com>...
I'm looking to solidify my stance on head scarves in schools.
I think that France is being short-sighted in its banning of head scarves.
Rather than unity, they will get fragmentation and grief. One must be
very careful when seperating church and state. I think that France is
forcing unity and atheism on Muslims which will backfire.
To me, religion, or lack thereof is a PERSONAL thing. So long as you do
not force your beliefs on others (like organized school prayer), you can
pray all you want (or not) and wear what you want (within some reason, the
knife-carrying of the Sikh's for example is out-of-bounds).
I did find this concerning the knives, which looks to be a good compromise.
http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/n061297b.html
"Under the agreement, the kirpan blade must be no longer than 2.5 inches.
It must also be dulled and sewn securely into a sheath and further secured
in a cloth pouch which the Sikh community in Livingstone designed to
accommodate the District's concerns over safety. The parties further
agreed to give the District limited inspection rights to be sure that the
restrictions are being followed."
Failure to tolerate other people's beliefs ultimately results in
intolerrance of your beliefs and fuels the fire of fundamentalists. It's
extremely short-sighted. As an atheist, I think that forcing people to
give up their superstitious beliefs causes them to add more bricks to
their wall and ultimately result in more people clinging (now more
tightly) to their superstitious beliefs. It's counterproductive.
So long as they're not a danger to society, personal freedom should reign
supreme.
I think the lady in Florida who refused to remove her cover (burka I
think) for her driver's license is a danger to society. (there would be
no picture of her face should she run afoul of the law) They later
revoked her license and told her to come in for a new photograph. That's
reasonable.
Head scarves are reasonable too. I personally disagree with them. I
disagree with what they stand for. But. I'll get a lot farther
tolerating them.
Anyone care to chime in?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Strig" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 04:29:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:17:46 GMT, Brainfried <no@way.com> wrote:
I'm looking to solidify my stance on head scarves in schools.
I think that France is being short-sighted in its banning of head scarves.
Rather than unity, they will get fragmentation and grief. One must be
very careful when seperating church and state. I think that France is
forcing unity and atheism on Muslims which will backfire.
To me, religion, or lack thereof is a PERSONAL thing. So long as you do
not force your beliefs on others (like organized school prayer), you can
pray all you want (or not) and wear what you want (within some reason, the
knife-carrying of the Sikh's for example is out-of-bounds).
I did find this concerning the knives, which looks to be a good compromise.
http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/n061297b.html
"Under the agreement, the kirpan blade must be no longer than 2.5 inches.
It must also be dulled and sewn securely into a sheath and further secured
in a cloth pouch which the Sikh community in Livingstone designed to
accommodate the District's concerns over safety. The parties further
agreed to give the District limited inspection rights to be sure that the
restrictions are being followed."
Failure to tolerate other people's beliefs ultimately results in
intolerrance of your beliefs and fuels the fire of fundamentalists. It's
extremely short-sighted. As an atheist, I think that forcing people to
give up their superstitious beliefs causes them to add more bricks to
their wall and ultimately result in more people clinging (now more
tightly) to their superstitious beliefs. It's counterproductive.
So long as they're not a danger to society, personal freedom should reign
supreme.
I think the lady in Florida who refused to remove her cover (burka I
think) for her driver's license is a danger to society. (there would be
no picture of her face should she run afoul of the law) They later
revoked her license and told her to come in for a new photograph. That's
reasonable.
Head scarves are reasonable too. I personally disagree with them. I
disagree with what they stand for. But. I'll get a lot farther
tolerating them.
Anyone care to chime in?
As I see it,the idea of uniforms and acceptable codes of dress is so
that individuals are can't be discriminated against because of what
they wear. In the case of school children, the parents are encouraging
their offspring to stand out from the crowd, which can't be in the
child's best interests. As France, and many other European counties,
is multi-cultural and multi-faith, I am in complete agreement with the
banning of all religious symbolism in schools and places of work.
The more that can be done to eradicate sectarianism the better.
...
aa #1734
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 07:23:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:29:58 +0000, Strig wrote:
As I see it,the idea of uniforms and acceptable codes of dress is so
that individuals are can't be discriminated against because of what
they wear.
Descriminated against. How? Descrimination is solely the choice of the
descriminator. Should we limit what people wear simply because the
descriminator is so narrow-minded?
In the case of school children, the parents are encouraging
their offspring to stand out from the crowd, which can't be in the
child's best interests.
So says you, but it's not up to the state to say any different. Every
time you limit one person's rights, be prepared for your rights to get
limited. It is a slippery slope. Never ever limit rights unless there is
absolutely no other method and the choices of some have a very adverse
effect upon OTHERS.
As France, and many other European counties,
is multi-cultural and multi-faith, I am in complete agreement with the
banning of all religious symbolism in schools and places of work.
One must always look at what would happen if the shoe was on the other
foot. If they were looking to ban atheism, you wouldn't be singing the
same tune.
The more that can be done to eradicate sectarianism the better.
I strongly agree. I just disagree with the method. I believe more files
can be caught with honey than vinegar. You can't force people to believe
as you do. You can't tell or dictate anything to them. You simply have
to exist as an atheist and let them figure it out. It's the actions which
will make the greatest impression, if any at all, and not the words (laws
in this case). The best thing you can do is be an excellent example of an
atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
11 Feb 2004 03:04:05 PM |
|
|
Brainfried wrote:
I strongly agree. I just disagree with the method. I believe more files
can be caught with honey than vinegar.
You want flies ? Nothing works better than ***** !
sdq
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Strig" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 08:49:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:23:19 GMT, Brainfried <no@way.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:29:58 +0000, Strig wrote:
As I see it,the idea of uniforms and acceptable codes of dress is so
that individuals are can't be discriminated against because of what
they wear.
Descriminated against. How? Descrimination is solely the choice of the
descriminator. Should we limit what people wear simply because the
descriminator is so narrow-minded?
In the case of schools, it's mainly the other children that are the
problem. If anyone is a little bit different they can go through hell.
In the case of school children, the parents are encouraging
their offspring to stand out from the crowd, which can't be in the
child's best interests.
So says you, but it's not up to the state to say any different. Every
time you limit one person's rights, be prepared for your rights to get
limited. It is a slippery slope. Never ever limit rights unless there is
absolutely no other method and the choices of some have a very adverse
effect upon OTHERS.
The slippery slope would be to allow religious symbols into schools
and I think Chirac has realised this. I take it you are not advocating
that no line should be drawn - for instance you would not be in favour
of the traditional full veil. In which case some rights must be
limited and, if you limit the rights of religious groups on a case by
case basis, you will have accusations of persecution and no end of
trouble. And don't say use common sense, as religion and common sense
wouldn't recognise each other.
As France, and many other European counties,
is multi-cultural and multi-faith, I am in complete agreement with the
banning of all religious symbolism in schools and places of work.
One must always look at what would happen if the shoe was on the other
foot. If they were looking to ban atheism, you wouldn't be singing the
same tune.
I'm not looking to ban religion, just to keep it out of schools and
other places where it doesn't belong. I know it's another matter, but
just look at the trouble in Northern Ireland caused by the segregation
of Catholics and Protestants in schools - and they are supposed to
follow the same religion!
The more that can be done to eradicate sectarianism the better.
I strongly agree. I just disagree with the method. I believe more files
can be caught with honey than vinegar. You can't force people to believe
as you do. You can't tell or dictate anything to them. You simply have
to exist as an atheist and let them figure it out. It's the actions which
will make the greatest impression, if any at all, and not the words (laws
in this case). The best thing you can do is be an excellent example of an
atheist.
...
aa #1734
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: Head scarves |
10 Feb 2004 04:02:08 PM |
|
|
Well, it isn't a lot different than schools around the world, including
some in the U.S., that mandate uniforms. With much the same goal of
eliminating controversial signs of individuality.
As an American, I'm not crazy about it and would rather "we all just got
along." But since that isn't possible, this is second best.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
