French Ban on Religious symbols [Archive]

22nd January 2004, 15:30

So now we have to decide what the persons intentions were. Religion can be hidden, I could grow a beard for religious significance, yet claim that it's not. Bordering on thought crimes here.
It hasn't not come to this point, but the law can be interpreted like that. Which could be dangerous in the future.

Also, I won't deny the fact that many women are in fact oppressed in "Islamic" countries. But many women choose to wear the head scarf etc.
I even have family in South Africa that choose to wear the whole veil outfit....of their own free will.

edit,
I don't think the government should force women to wear scarves or veils (like in many "Islamic" countries) Just as I don't think goverments should force women not to wear them. They are 2 sides of the same coin ---- <_< not really sure if that made sense there :blink:

Intifada

22nd January 2004, 17:26

i think that people should be given the choice whether or not they want to wear something. why should the government have the right to tell people not to wear something?

if a woman has chemotherapy and loses all her hair, and she decides to wear a scarf, who has the right to tell her to take it off. initially you wouldnt know about her condition.

BuyOurEverything

22nd January 2004, 21:03

But many women choose to wear the head scarf etc.
I even have family in South Africa that choose to wear the whole veil outfit....of their own free will.

Yes, but why does she choose to wear it? It may not be forced on her by law, but it is still a symbol of oppression and is forced on her by culture.

ComradeRobertRiley

22nd January 2004, 21:08

Its good to see a country moving against religion.

Thumbs up for france, for this and for going against Bush in the Iraq war.

mentalbunny

22nd January 2004, 21:20

We're looking at this at school quite a bit (I'm doing French AS), and a Belgian girl (well, young woman) gave a talk tonight on why she decided to convert, and then decided to wear the veil, and it made a lot of sense.

Doubtless many women who wear the veil do it because of family and cultural pressures, but many do it freely, or at least have good reasons, plus tradition and all that. Apparently the modest way of dressing and wearing the veil gives this particular woman a feeling of being seen as a thinking person, rather than a sexual object. Also many people are more polite to you if you wear a veil, or a burqa or something, which can't be at all bad.

I don't mind if people want to dress in miniskirts and all the rest, but personally I dress in a pretty modest way, I don't often wear make-up and this works for me. I like to be seen for my actions, words and thoughts, not the way I look, so I see the point of women who wear the veil, etc, but I don't believe in enforcing any way of dressing.

my last point is that clothes don't have to be particularly revealing to be sexy. take traditional japanese Geishas. if you've read "memoirs of a geisha" then you'll know that they wear a lot of clothes, but it's their make up that can really make the guys swear, because the thin bare area between the hairline and the rest of the face hints at naked skin in other places, etc. Why do we need such overt sexuality?! But we should be free to do what we want, i just object to society dictating to us westerners that we have to wear as little as possible and be as thin and tanned as possible, and just be sex objects really, and other cultures tell women they must cover themselves up and be almost invisible.

Jesus Christ

22nd January 2004, 21:57

Its too bad the Chirac is supporting this, its taking away the people's religious expression.

18tir

22nd January 2004, 22:42

I honestly believe that the anti-religious ban is correct. France is a secular nation and the government should do everything it can to make sure that it stays that way. If women would want to wear the hejab outside of the schools, they are free to do so. But religion has no place in the public schools.

redstar2000

23rd January 2004, 16:11

Originally posted by Jesus [email protected] 22 2004, 05:57 PM
Its too bad the Chirac is supporting this, its taking away the people's religious expression.
If I were an administrator on this board, I would ban your username. Not you, but that name.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Kez

23rd January 2004, 16:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:08 PM
Its good to see a country moving against religion.

Thumbs up for france, for this and for going against Bush in the Iraq war.
u fucking bellend

ive stood in pieces of dog shit that have done more for the socialist movement than you.

The point is Chirac is attacking religion FROM THE RIGHT, since when do we support the right?

Hitler was also against Judaism, Catholocism etc, should we say Hitler was right?

And on top of this, you prove your stupidity into thinking France didnt go to war in Iraq because of the same reasons we didnt want to go to iraq, when are you fucking off to your island and leaving us in peace to continue the real fight?

Solace

23rd January 2004, 16:23

Thumbs up for france (...) for going against Bush in the Iraq war.

Fool. France had oil contracts in Iraq. France's support for the war in would have cost a lot. Huge investements would be lost.

Money makes the world go round. Don't kid yourslef into thinking that capitalist countries give two shits about other countries. They look for their interest first.

Kez

23rd January 2004, 16:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:23 PM

Thumbs up for france (...) for going against Bush in the Iraq war.

Fool. France had oil contracts in Iraq. France's support for the war in would have cost a lot. Huge investements would be lost.

Money makes the world go round. Don't kid yourslef into thinking that capitalist countries give two shits about other countries. They look for their interest first.
bang on. very correct, same applies to Germany.

Edelweiss

23rd January 2004, 16:34

Originally posted by Kez+Jan 23 2004, 07:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kez @ Jan 23 2004, 07:17 PM)
[email protected] 22 2004, 10:08 PM
Its good to see a country moving against religion.

Thumbs up for france, for this and for going against Bush in the Iraq war.
u fucking bellend

ive stood in pieces of dog shit that have done more for the socialist movement than you.

The point is Chirac is attacking religion FROM THE RIGHT, since when do we support the right?

Hitler was also against Judaism, Catholocism etc, should we say Hitler was right?

And on top of this, you prove your stupidity into thinking France didnt go to war in Iraq because of the same reasons we didnt want to go to iraq, when are you fucking off to your island and leaving us in peace to continue the real fight? [/b]
I really can't see your point about Chirac attacking religion "from the right". The point is not which party Chirac is member of, what has that to do with the issue at all? I'm really not a friend of Chirac at all (still have my "Fuck Chirac" shirt in my cupboard :)), but Chirac is consistently pushing through the secular French state which was founded after the French revolution, that is not a wrong thing at all IMO, and very progressive. If he is doing that with any racist, anti-Arabian rhetoric, than you would be right, but I have not heard about that, correct me if I'm wrong. Your stance is rather narrow-minded...

Jesus Christ

23rd January 2004, 19:15

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 23 2004, 12:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Jan 23 2004, 12:11 PM)
Jesus [email protected] 22 2004, 05:57 PM
Its too bad the Chirac is supporting this, its taking away the people's religious expression.
If I were an administrator on this board, I would ban your username. Not you, but that name.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
I do sure hope you are joking, I have a funny user name.

Kez

23rd January 2004, 19:18

Malte, IF Chirac was doing this for progressive purposes, i would support you, but rather i believe he is leaning on the most backward elements of society for this i would agree with you, but i dont believe this is the case, i will go into more detail, but i gtg now, i explain later

Kez

23rd January 2004, 20:51

As i was saying, I doubt very much Chirac believes that religion is the opiate of the masses, and therefore should be halted. I believe that he is merely pandering for votes from the right wing who will see this as a stop to islam. Why? Because this is an unprecedented move, which is a reaction to the bullshit propaganda from the right that France is being swamped by islam. If chirac is seen as putting a stop to the "spread of islam" he will get the votes he needs for his presedential election in a couple of yeasr (?).

Isnt it therefore our duty to tell the workers that religion should be stopped because its bullshit, not because the culture of islam will takeover, as is the answer from the right.

Views?

seen_che

23rd January 2004, 21:41

UH!!! i´t wont help shit banning. Girls will still be lover then men in Islam and some off them actualy do want to show their belives. AND IT REALLY DOSENT HURT ENY ONE WEARING A SCARF.
WHY DO WE GET HUNG UP ON SMAL DETAILS LIKE THISN (sorry for the spelling :( )

apathy maybe

23rd January 2004, 23:58

Here I was growing a beard 'cause I felt that men were given hair for a reason (to keep the face warm).
If I was in France man or not I would were a headscarf just because. I am not a Muslim but they would still want me to not wear it because it is a "religious" symbol. I used to wear a skull cap till my hair got to long but I'm not a Jew.
I think I might start a religion that says that all clothes are needed, and if you don't wear them you are breaking the religious law. Then convert everyone I know in Europe. (That would be the extent of the commands, you should be allowed to do what you want so long as you don't hurt others.)

redstar2000

24th January 2004, 00:56

Originally posted by Jesus Christ+Jan 23 2004, 03:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jesus Christ @ Jan 23 2004, 03:15 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:11 PM

Jesus [email protected] 22 2004, 05:57 PM
It's too bad the Chirac is supporting this, it's taking away the people's religious expression.

If I were an administrator on this board, I would ban your username. Not you, but that name.

I do sure hope you are joking, I have a funny user name. [/b]
Nope, not joking. I find the username "Jesus Christ" to be an offensive display of a superstitious symbol.

There is a very odd argument being advanced here.

It's being suggested that because Chirac is acting from reactionary motives that we should "therefore" be opposed to his progressive act.

I have no doubt at all that Chirac is acting from reactionary motives...he's a reactionary.

What do his motives have to do with anything? What do anyone's motives have to do with anything?

If someone does something really shitty and then says "oh, I meant well"...does that make the shit smell "better"?

So if a shit does something good even though he "meant to do harm", do we then "oppose" the "good deed"?

That's fucking crazy!

The banning of religious symbols in French public schools is a small step in the right direction...without regard to Chirac's motives or anything else!

And, for that matter, Chirac's "opposition" to U.S. imperialism--pathetically lame though it is--is also a small step in the right direction.

That doesn't mean I would "vote for Chirac" (you know my position on bourgeois "elections" :angry:).

It means I say publicly that Chirac did two good things and I applaud those two good things without regard to Chirac's motivations.

If he comes up with another proposal to further drive religion out of public life or harass U.S. imperialism in some trivial way, I'll applaud those things too.

Why shouldn't I?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Yazman

24th January 2004, 02:42

Just as Redstar said above (good work, Redstar, you said it before I could!), what the hell does a person's motive have to do with anything at all?

Imagine if somebody thought up an idea for a legislation or law. Now imagine if Chirac and Castro both put this into practice through the EXACT SAME METHODS. If it was the same thing, then how could you honestly hate Chirac for doing it "from the right", yet think Castro's doing it is good because it's "from the left". It's the SAME THING, what the person's motives are is IRRELEVANT.

Jesus Christ

24th January 2004, 02:48

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 23 2004, 08:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Jan 23 2004, 08:56 PM)
Originally posted by Jesus [email protected] 23 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:11 PM

Jesus [email protected] 22 2004, 05:57 PM
It's too bad the Chirac is supporting this, it's taking away the people's religious expression.

If I were an administrator on this board, I would ban your username. Not you, but that name.

I do sure hope you are joking, I have a funny user name.
Nope, not joking. I find the username "Jesus Christ" to be an offensive display of a superstitious symbol.

There is a very odd argument being advanced here.

It's being suggested that because Chirac is acting from reactionary motives that we should "therefore" be opposed to his progressive act.

I have no doubt at all that Chirac is acting from reactionary motives...he's a reactionary.

What do his motives have to do with anything? What do anyone's motives have to do with anything?

If someone does something really shitty and then says "oh, I meant well"...does that make the shit smell "better"?

So if a shit does something good even though he "meant to do harm", do we then "oppose" the "good deed"?

That's fucking crazy!

The banning of religious symbols in French public schools is a small step in the right direction...without regard to Chirac's motives or anything else!

And, for that matter, Chirac's "opposition" to U.S. imperialism--pathetically lame though it is--is also a small step in the right direction.

That doesn't mean I would "vote for Chirac" (you know my position on bourgeois "elections" :angry:).

It means I say publicly that Chirac did two good things and I applaud those two good things without regard to Chirac's motivations.

If he comes up with another proposal to further drive religion out of public life or harass U.S. imperialism in some trivial way, I'll applaud those things too.

Why shouldn't I?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
a simple "Yes I would" wouldve done just fine
:lol:

Edelweiss

24th January 2004, 16:23

What do his motives have to do with anything? What do anyone's motives have to do with anything?

I agree to this, but not entirely. I think it's important to stress that this is only true for the bourgois forces , I would NEVER politically support any things fascists are doing, even if they would do progressive things in some areas.

Kez

24th January 2004, 17:04

does this mean we should support bourgeois in certain situations? what happened to class independence? bollocks to Chirac being our mouthpiece, we should only support the struggle of our class, or prepare to be betrayed by Chirac and his class if we support them

Umoja

24th January 2004, 17:09

Even more this is only a shot against Islam, people are still allowed to wear crosses as long as they are small to school. That's completely BS.

Also, despite what people may say about opression, I don't think the government should bann a certain form of expression, for students, in a public institution. Racist symbols... maybe, but *most* (I know Redstar is) people aren't offended by a person wearing a headscarf (hijab).

Edelweiss

24th January 2004, 17:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:04 PM
does this mean we should support bourgeois in certain situations?
Of course! Marx supported bougois forces aswell, he was a vehement supporter of the bourgois revolution attempts in Germany in 1848 for example. I guess you have misunderstood a lot of Marxist theory...

yes i am arab

24th January 2004, 18:38

well news of this pisses me off, i knew france was fucked up... but shit man. well i of course dont support this because i am a Muslim....or at least consider myself one. but still, the hejab you say may be a sign of oppression but i know plenty of girls/women that wear them, and a lot started wearing them after 9/11, just to say, yes, im muslim....fuck you. and for a while i wore the Islamic skullcap, and i did in an airport, and what happened? before i got on the plane they asked me shitloads of questions and searched my bags. it could be possible that the French government is trying to get rid of creedism, or excluding people because of their faith. but still, he's trying to make everyone the same....you know like that hitler guy, to me thats just fascist.

Edelweiss

24th January 2004, 18:52

Originally posted by yes i am [email protected] 24 2004, 09:38 PM
you know like that hitler guy, to me thats just fascist.
What a disgusting and inappropriated comparison!

Umoja

24th January 2004, 19:03

I think Hitler is a harsh comparisson as well, it's just a law worded against Muslims, especially Muslim girls. It isn't going to have many positive effects either, French has an Arab/North African Population of about 10%, correct? A decent amount of them are Muslims I'd assume. So that means a portion of them will start attending private Islamic schools. And a part of them will become strongly anti-French. And a part of them will become radical. And a part of them will become terrorist.... Etc.

Edelweiss

24th January 2004, 19:04

Question to "yes i am arab": are you a communist or a Muslim? Don't wanna be disrepectful of your faith, but you can't be both IMO.

Don't Change Your Name

24th January 2004, 19:29

This is a very interesting debate!

I would like to see what they say in yankeeland if in France they do this. I bet they will use it to proove that France is against freedom or if it doesn't accept the proposal they will say they support "Arab Muslim Terrorists".

I tend to hate religions. I think the Christian, the Jewish and the Muslim are crap and should be banned and deleted from this universe for everything they did, but at the same time I can't support people being taken that freedom away and there are FEW interesting things in each philosophy.
But the bears thing is ridicoulous.

abigratsass

24th January 2004, 19:56

fist of all, im a muslim women (egyption) and althought my parents are kind of religious they never told me to wear a veil and my mom doesnt wear it.
in some cases, yes it would symbolizes oppersion but most of the people living in france are open minded and have freedom of choice .

secound and most important i think for people who claim to know the western media doesnt say the truth(almost never!!!) you dont seem to have tried to look further than that for the truth, a veil first of all allows a women to think about important issues rather than the way she looks. plus alot of muslims belive that wearing a veil is part of the religon like praying so what your basically doing is enforcing people to abandon part of thier belifs just because of culturel diffrences .

im sure to a lot of people a women in veil means either a terriost or someone who is oppresed but thats not the case at all.

i dont think you should give muslims anthore reason to despise the west about freedom realted issuses( we despise western goverments as well as ours enought!!!!!!) and you shouldnt give terriosits anthore reason to pretend thier fighting in our name!!!

salam !!!
ever onward to victory!!! (i hope)

Sabocat

24th January 2004, 20:19

PARIS - France's fight to keep religion out of schools

This is it in a nutshell. Separation of church and state. Why would any leftist argue about this? I believe that the proposed law also prevents yarmulkes and crosses as well doesn't it?

The law does not stipulate that you can't wear what you please at home or in public, just not in state/government property. That's the way it should be.

Religious icons and dress don't belong in schools.

As Redstar stated..."it's a small step in the right direction".

Solace

24th January 2004, 20:38

I think the Christian, the Jewish and the Muslim are crap and should be banned and deleted from this universe for everything they did

Now, that’s just inane. You are focusing on the wrong enemy. We do not fight the religious people but rather religion itself. Banning or killing them do not eradicate religion. You might even get the opposite result.

Attacking a false enemy is a dangerous thing. Someone did that before. Err, what’s his name *searches in papers*

Ah, yeah. Presbush v2.0.

you know like that hitler guy, to me thats just fascist

You know, it's amazing how people always make foolish comparaisons with Hitler&Nazis whenever they find they don't agree with something.

And there is some confusion here. France wants to banning religious symbols in the name of laicity. Why are you people bringing the terrorism issue here?

18tir

24th January 2004, 21:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 06:09 PM
Even more this is only a shot against Islam, people are still allowed to wear crosses as long as they are small to school. That's completely BS.

Muslims can still wear small Islamic symbols. The law affects all religious groups, not just Muslims.

Kez

I don't think we should oppose this ruling just because Chirac may have a right-wing or racist motive. The anti-religious ruling is progressive and correct. It's goal is to protect France's secular system. Muslims, Christians and Jews are treated equally. Muslims cannot wear the hejab and Jews cannot wear the skull cap.

mentalbunny

24th January 2004, 21:14

By the way both the far left and the far right (Le Pen) are against the law!

I think that you shouldn't stop people from expressing religous beliefs, as long as it does not seriously impinge on anything important, like refusing to be photographed without the veil for your passport or driving license, that's just going too far.

Kez

25th January 2004, 07:15

Malte,
Surely Marx was refering to capitalism being progressive compared to feudal times..... and to the best of my knowledge 2004 France is not a feudal society where we should support the bourgeoise....

We should never support bourgeoise line once a capitalist system has been approached. We can not oppose it, but thats different supporting it. I wouldnt oppose it, but i sure wouldnt support it. Even when the capitalists were fighting Hitler we shouldnt have supported the capitalists, we should have fought for revolution, and only then using superior system of socialism we should have smashed fascism.

The French Communists supported the capitalists during WW2 against fascism, the capitalists in return ripped their bollocks off for the favour.

I find it especially funny for redstar to suggest we should collaborate with the capitalists, when every other time one suggest using parliament as a platform for revolution, one is labeled a capitalist supporter or nonsense like so. So now your opportunist as well as a ultra-left wind bag

Edelweiss

25th January 2004, 10:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:15 AM
Malte,
Surely Marx was refering to capitalism being progressive compared to feudal times..... and to the best of my knowledge 2004 France is not a feudal society where we should support the bourgeoise....

We should never support bourgeoise line once a capitalist system has been approached. We can not oppose it, but thats different supporting it. I wouldnt oppose it, but i sure wouldnt support it. Even when the capitalists were fighting Hitler we shouldnt have supported the capitalists, we should have fought for revolution, and only then using superior system of socialism we should have smashed fascism.

The French Communists supported the capitalists during WW2 against fascism, the capitalists in return ripped their bollocks off for the favour.

I find it especially funny for redstar to suggest we should collaborate with the capitalists, when every other time one suggest using parliament as a platform for revolution, one is labeled a capitalist supporter or nonsense like so. So now your opportunist as well as a ultra-left wind bag
No, I can not agree to this. If you want, Chirac is consitently pushing through the ideals of the bourgois revolution and the progressive (bourgois) idea of secularism. I can not see anything wrong with that, I can not see why a leftist shouldn't support this, only because Chirac is member of the wrong party. It would be foolish, politically and tactically, to say that we never should cooperate with bourgois forces on certain issues. Especially in times where a socialist revolution in bougois states is lightyears away from reality, and especially concerning fighting the fascists, where your stance is more than outrageous and total bullshit!!! Of course we have to cooperate with the bourgoise when it's about fighting the fascists. Everything else would help the fascists to get stronger! Everything else would be a slap in the face of all victims of fascist violence! No Kamo, we have to fight the fascists by all means neccessary! Learn from history Kamo, Hitler gained power because the German communists couldn't even ally with the Social Democats to a strong leftist anti-fascist front, and because the communists where not willing to defend the bougois republic against fascism!

Kez

25th January 2004, 11:27

Comrade Malte,

i think there is a significant difference in not allying with social democrats of 1930's and not allying with capitalists today, i dont think that analogy is at all fair, and it simply doesnt work, of course communists should have allied with social democrats, that would create a unified front, but to support Chirac (capitalism) is creating a popular front.

You tell me (rather arrogantly) to look at history, i advise you comrade to look at history. Please tell me what happened to the popular front in Spanish Civil war

Also, tell me what happened to the communist movement in France after they propped up the capitalist regime of De Gualle, i'll tell you what happened, they got smashed.

Using your argument, Lenin should not have revolted in Russia as they were facing war with the Kaisers Capitalist Germany, Fascism is still a branch of capitalism. In the same way on a smaller scale in Germany, Luxemborg shouldnt have revolted, and should instead of propper up the Ebert et al governments who had waves of Putsches on their hands.

From where im standing, it seems you are confused, i hope i have misunderstood you.

yours fraternally

Edelweiss

25th January 2004, 11:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:27 PM
Comrade Malte,

i think there is a significant difference in not allying with social democrats of 1930's and not allying with capitalists today, i dont think that analogy is at all fair, and it simply doesnt work, of course communists should have allied with social democrats, that would create a unified front, but to support Chirac (capitalism) is creating a popular front.

You tell me (rather arrogantly) to look at history, i advise you comrade to look at history. Please tell me what happened to the popular front in Spanish Civil war

Also, tell me what happened to the communist movement in France after they propped up the capitalist regime of De Gualle, i'll tell you what happened, they got smashed.

Using your argument, Lenin should not have revolted in Russia as they were facing war with the Kaisers Capitalist Germany, Fascism is still a branch of capitalism. In the same way on a smaller scale in Germany, Luxemborg shouldnt have revolted, and should instead of propper up the Ebert et al governments who had waves of Putsches on their hands.

From where im standing, it seems you are confused, i hope i have misunderstood you.

yours fraternally
Supporting people like Chirac on certain (very limited!) issues like secualrism and anti-fascism, does of course not mean to support capitalism in general.
Further, you brought up the issue of not allying with bougoise against the fascists, not me, it has admitingly little to do with the actual topic of this thread.
And of course I do not say that it's wrong to support revolutionary struggles against bougoise republics, but not in times of an imminent fascist state, like in Germany in the 30s and during the Spanish civil war.

Edelweiss

25th January 2004, 12:28

To make it clear: I'm of course not calling for active collaboration with people like Chirac on the issue of secularism, but for political support of his action. Important difference!

Kez

25th January 2004, 12:57

Malte, then maybe we should support the issue, rather than support CHirac? I support secularism, but i dont support Chirac because he bought it in, neither do i support his (and his class') action in bringing it in. Why, because at the root our REASONING is very much different.

I make an analogy, if you and a capitalist are sitting in a room, and theres a door open. You see someone is trying to come in, but you also see theres a draft. The capitalist closes the door so the person doesnt come in, but u want the door closed so that the draft doesnt come in. Do you support the capitalist in closing the door? Surely it would be better to boot the capitalist out first, then you INDEPENDENTLY close the door?
i hope this analogy works, fuckin took me ages to make it, god damnit

As for fascist question, i will open a thread on it later, it will be interesting discusion, and it did have something to do with this topic, in that we should always maintain class independence, even against fascism.

Reuben

25th January 2004, 13:00

I do not support Malte necessarily in his support fr Chirac's plans but theoreticallly i believe he is right.

There is a difference between supporting the 'progressive bourgoies' line on a particular issue and joining with them in general organisational and ideologcal terms.

The working class mst indeed continue to organise independently, but on that basis they should take an instrumental attitude to progessive forces/processes arising from the bourgoiesie. In other words they should be able to conditionally support certaub initiatives in so far as they advance working lclass interests but at the same time be ready to fight for true working class emancipation on their own terms. On the basis of kez's post it would be justifiable for workers to take a 'neutral' stance on the minimum wage, since it is formulated in a way whcih is bound up with captalism.

Kez

25th January 2004, 13:13

Right, so basically

we shouldnt support Chirac
we shouldnt support him putting the proposal there
but we should support the proposal itself, at least in a passive manner?
But at the same time we should fight for OUR reasons why the proposal itself is good?

any views?

redstar2000

25th January 2004, 13:29

I find it especially funny for redstar to suggest we should collaborate with the capitalists, when every other time one suggests using parliament as a platform for revolution, one is labeled a capitalist supporter or nonsense like so. So now you're opportunist as well as a ultra-left wind bag.

Whether I'm an "ultra-left wind bag" is for others to decide. :D

But the label of "opportunism" is grotesque.

Opportunism, in a political sense, is support of a policy that you are really opposed to in order to gain some perceived tactical advantage.

I'm not opposed to Chirac's policy...I think it's a good idea and I hope it is rigorously implemented.

Does that mean I plan to campaign for Chirac? Or even vote for him? Or suggest that revolutionaries should "hit the streets" in support of him?

Not a fucking chance...as you very well know.

It is not "collaboration" with the bourgeoisie to support a particular bourgeois policy initiative...if that initiative is already consistent with your total outlook.

I think I mentioned this example earlier, but it bears repeating: one of the last German chancellors prior to Hitler tried to stop the rise of Nazism by banning the wearing of political uniforms and militaristic paraphernalia in public.

I would most certainly have supported that measure...and if the government had made other proposals to "crack down" on the Nazis, I might have supported those as well--even at the "risk" of those measures being directed against me.

Granted, it would have been better if the left had won "the battle of the streets" against the Nazis...but in extremis, you take what you can get.

That doesn't require that you "flop on your belly" to the capitalist class or start babbling about "progressive bourgeoisie" or any of that crap.

It says that on this issue, at this time the proposal is a good one...and we should support it.

By the way both the far left and the far right (Le Pen) are against the law!

If Mentalbunny is right about this, then here is real opportunism for you.

The far right would love any measure that would make life "more uncomfortable" for Muslim immigrants...but they "oppose" Chirac's proposal because it "steals their thunder".

And the French "far left" has no use at all for religion--but they think that by opposing Chirac on this issue, they can win an "easy popularity" among the devout as well as among bourgeois civil libertarians.

Disgusting!

A historical note: it's my understanding that when Hitler was named German Chancellor, the German Communist Party proposed a general strike to the leaders of the Social Democratic Party...and were flatly rejected. Bourgeois historians unfairly blame the KPD for the lack of left unity against fascism...I think the SPD was at least equally responsible.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Edelweiss

25th January 2004, 13:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:29 PM
A historical note: it's my understanding that when Hitler was named German Chancellor, the German Communist Party proposed a general strike to the leaders of the Social Democratic Party...and were flatly rejected. Bourgeois historians unfairly blame the KPD for the lack of left unity against fascism...I think the SPD was at least equally responsible.

Very true of course!

Kez

25th January 2004, 15:33

so would you agree with my earlier post then?

"we shouldnt support Chirac
we shouldnt support him putting the proposal there
but we should support the proposal itself, at least in a passive manner?
But at the same time we should fight for OUR reasons why the proposal itself is good?"

Edelweiss

25th January 2004, 15:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:33 PM
so would you agree with my earlier post then?

"we shouldnt support Chirac
we shouldnt support him putting the proposal there
but we should support the proposal itself, at least in a passive manner?
But at the same time we should fight for OUR reasons why the proposal itself is good?"
I would somewhat agree, but I can't see any significant difference between:

"we shouldnt support him putting the proposal there"

and

"but we should support the proposal itself, at least in a passive manner?"

Kez

25th January 2004, 15:38

to use our example,

"we shouldnt support him putting the proposal there"
We should support CHIRAC (as an entity and his class) for putting up this proposal concerning religion

"but we should support the proposal itself"
We should support the proposal concerning religion as it is the same as ours

Edelweiss

25th January 2004, 15:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:38 PM
to use our example,

"we shouldnt support him putting the proposal there"
We should support CHIRAC (as an entity and his class) for putting up this proposal concerning religion

"but we should support the proposal itself"
We should support the proposal concerning religion as it is the same as ours
Than your difference is based on nothing than pure semantic.

Kez

25th January 2004, 16:31

*sighs and rolls eyes* :rolleyes:

Von Apfelstrudel

28th January 2004, 15:58

Originally posted by Kez+Jan 22 2004, 02:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kez @ Jan 22 2004, 02:37 PM)
Funky [email protected] 22 2004, 02:33 PM
Apparently the beard is only banned if it has religious significance.

Which makes me think, would a man be allowed to wear a head scarf if he is an aetheist?
valid question :) [/b]
Actually, no .
Keeping your head coverd in class (or any public area ) is considered impolite.

bombeverything

28th January 2004, 22:08

I disagree with most of you. I think the ban is wrong. People should be able to wear what they want.

Don't Change Your Name

29th January 2004, 01:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:38 PM

I think the Christian, the Jewish and the Muslim are crap and should be banned and deleted from this universe for everything they did

Now, that’s just inane. You are focusing on the wrong enemy. We do not fight the religious people but rather religion itself. Banning or killing them do not eradicate religion. You might even get the opposite result.

Attacking a false enemy is a dangerous thing. Someone did that before. Err, what’s his name *searches in papers*

Ah, yeah. Presbush v2.0.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THOSE RELIGIONS, not about the religious.

You misunderstood what I wrote. If I wasn't talking about the religious people, if I would I would have written: "I think the Christians`,..." or "I think the Christian,...people".

I was talking about religions, that's why I wrote it that way. I should have said "I think the Christian, the Jewish and the Muslim religion..." or "ones".

KickMcCann

29th January 2004, 03:38

What if you just want to have a beard or a headscarf for the heck of it? I've seen dozens upon dozens of pictures from France of elderly women walking around with scarves on their heads, even though they're not muslims-its just to hold their hair in place. So technically I thing a Muslim could get away with wearing a beard or scarf, all they have to do is say its for non-religious reasons like their face gets cold, or their hair gets messy in the wind.
Also I think the wording has to do with religious symbols, not cultural symbols; so you could just say it is in respect to a culture you are afilliated with. I'm pretty sure the hijab has more to do with Arab culture and tradition that with Islam itself, its just a custom which carried on with the religion. All the religious symbols being banned can also be tied in with different cultures. You could dress like a Rastafarian or Orthodox Jew even if you don't belong to those religions, and just say you admire the culture.
I think thats the best loop-hole around it, and if the French government goes as far as banning all Cultural symbols, then you have an even bigger issue. Can you imagine everyone in france being forced to wear grey uniforms just for the sake of societal stability? Chirac and company would have a revolution on their hands.

FAB

30th January 2004, 13:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 12:08 AM
I disagree with most of you. I think the ban is wrong. People should be able to wear what they want.
is wearing a headscarf for teachers in us-schools still allowed?

cubist

30th January 2004, 16:54

i think, you shouldn't be allowed to show your faith in public if it makes others uncomfortable, but at the same time scarfs and beards are a piss take.

FabFabian

1st February 2004, 06:21

The French gov't is wrong to ban headscarves as they are NOT a religious symbol. The hijab is a cultural dictate, co-opted by the Islamic faith to enslave women. It is a dictate based on incorrect interpretation of the Koran. The French gov't and so-called devout muslims are both paddling up shit creek. :P

redstar2000

2nd February 2004, 02:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:21 AM
The French gov't is wrong to ban headscarves as they are NOT a religious symbol. The hijab is a cultural dictate, co-opted by the Islamic faith to enslave women. It is a dictate based on incorrect interpretation of the Koran. The French gov't and so-called devout Muslims are both paddling up shit creek. :P
Even if what you say is true, I don't see how it bears on this controversy or its social implications.

I've heard more than once that this or that practice is "cultural", "not" religious.

But the fact of the matter is that these practices are symbolically identified as "religious" by the believers themselves.

In the case of Islam, in particular, there is "no pope" and conflicting interpretations of the Koran are common.

Everyone perceives Chirac's proposal as the attempt to remove ostentatious religious symbols from public schools...and it doesn't really matter if the Muslim head scarf is "not really Muslim".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Sabocat

10th February 2004, 19:34

Thought this may interest you all. It seems the decision is close to being final.

French National Assembly Approves Ban on Religious Symbols in Public Schools
Lisa Bryant
Paris
10 Feb 2004, 19:18 UTC

France's National Assembly has overwhelmingly approved a plan to ban Muslim headscarves and other religious symbols from French public schools. The Senate must now decide on the issue, but final approval is expected.
The late afternoon vote offered few surprises. Of the National Assembly's 577 deputies, 494 voted in favor of the legislation to ban Muslim headscarves, Jewish skull caps, Christian crosses, and other so-called conspicuous religious symbols from French public schools.

Only members of France's small Communist and Republican parties voted against the measure. A rebellious group within the ruling Union for a Popular Movement party abstained from the vote.

The landslide majority was achieved after a last-minute agreement by the opposition Socialist Party to vote in favor of the bill.

The Socialists had wanted the text to be hardened to ban all visible religious symbols, rather than only those judged to be conspicuous. That tougher wording would also forbid students to wear small crosses, Muslim hands of Fatma and other less obvious signs of their faiths. But the Socialists won a smaller concession, with an agreement to review the legislation next year to see whether it is effective.

The French Senate is expected to vote on a similar bill next month.

The religious symbols ban has the broad backing of French President Jacques Chirac and his center-right government. And since the Senate, like the National Assembly, is dominated by Mr. Chirac's UMP party, a vote in favor of the legislation is virtually assured.

That means French public school students will likely face such a ban when the next school year begins, in September. The measure would not apply to university students or to those going to private schools.

Despite strong support in the French parliament, the proposed religious symbols ban has stirred fierce criticism. Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders have protested the measure as violating freedom of religion and expression. So have members of France's tiny Sikh community, who argue wearing a turban is a mandatory part of their identity. And several foreign governments, including the United States, have expressed concern about such a ban.

But other critics argue a school symbols ban merely papers over larger problems of discrimination and marginalization facing France's sizable immigrant and minority populations.

Supporters argue that secularism is an integral part of the French national identity, and that forcing students to leave religious symbols outside their schools will help immigrant and minority groups integrate into the mainstream of French society.

Umoja

10th February 2004, 22:31

I never even thought about the Sikhs. They won't be able to use public schools at all. I mean they can't sit in chairs, and they need to wear turbans. That sucks for them.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

10th February 2004, 22:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 07:31 PM
I never even thought about the Sikhs. They won't be able to use public schools at all. I mean they can't sit in chairs, and they need to wear turbans. That sucks for them.
They are cult bastards, and I don't care what they can or cannot do because of their faith. Maybe someday they will wake up and realize how insane the whole thing is.

Personally I see Chirac as the left wing version of Blair. A person who runs as on a certain platform, and does the exact opposite. The whole reason that Chirac won was because of a popular front against LePen, to ENSURE that he would not win, and Chirac knows this. I think it would be very foolish of him to try and pass any legislation that the left wing has a serious issue with. Even if he is a conservative, I say the good outweighs the bad in respect to relative global politics. That man has some balls going up against the US, and he has a lot more to lose then a few oil contracts. He went into this knowing that the US would go to war in Iraq, weather he liked it or not, and by opposing Bush, Chirac knew that he had more to lose then to gain. Although I am still very suspicious of his motives, I think it would be as foolish for us to sit there and protest against all of his actions merely because he is from a conservative party, as it would be for a conservative party to sit there and oppose all of Blairs actions.

Hitman47

11th February 2004, 01:52

Talking about this, i believe its wrong.

I mean look at the sikh example, how can we distinguish religion from culture????

Sikhs in their religion are prohibited from cutting their hair. The turban is there to wrap their hair around so they don't have to carry their hair around all day. So is that religion or part of their culture???

this is only one example.

Also the burqas and veils, there is nothing in the Quran saying the Islamic women to wear it, but the men enforce it due to their beliefs of sexual temptation. So how can that be religious??? Its more likely cultural.

So why make pre-judgements on certain apparels as "religious?"

dark fairy

11th February 2004, 04:00

this is not the first time this happeneds in france if im not mistaken... people should have the right to wear whatever they want... i mean whether someone wears something shouldn't kill or hurt anyone not unless they are wearing clothes made from human skin or something like that ... :unsure:

acg4_9

11th February 2004, 06:00

Question to "yes i am arab": are you a communist or a Muslim? Don't wanna be disrepectful of your faith, but you can't be both IMO.
i would like to answer this question.
comandante malte with respect what do you know about islam ( not bin-laden's or taliban's).
i am not a religious guy but when i studied islam i found that it's really close to marxism from many points for example:
-islam fights capatlism
-islam says that all humans are equal
-islam gave woman a lot of rights exept the clothes thing.
-islam orders people to revolute against dectators and emperialists.
do you know that there is a wing in islam that says the hijab isn't a must and there is a book for dr.moh shahrour that says that.
yes i am a marxist and i'll always be but spiritualy i need islam to calm my soul.
in the arab region, we have a problem in getting people to read about marxism, and that's because they think if you are a marxist, you are an enemy to islam and god. and now our new generation of marxists and socialists are trying to wipe that idea, cause if you want the support of those billion muslims we must get to a middle point. cause alone our percentage is almost 0% .
believe me if muslims knew the greatness of marxism they will support us.
and if we knew the good things in islam we will support muslims more.

god bless our freedom fighters
viva iraq, viva palestine.

Intifada

11th February 2004, 16:03

i would like to answer this question.
comandante malte with respect what do you know about islam ( not bin-laden's or taliban's).
i am not a religious guy but when i studied islam i found that it's really close to marxism from many points for example:
-islam fights capatlism
-islam says that all humans are equal
-islam gave woman a lot of rights exept the clothes thing.
-islam orders people to revolute against dectators and emperialists.
do you know that there is a wing in islam that says the hijab isn't a must and there is a book for dr.moh shahrour that says that.
yes i am a marxist and i'll always be but spiritualy i need islam to calm my soul.
in the arab region, we have a problem in getting people to read about marxism, and that's because they think if you are a marxist, you are an enemy to islam and god. and now our new generation of marxists and socialists are trying to wipe that idea, cause if you want the support of those billion muslims we must get to a middle point. cause alone our percentage is almost 0% .
believe me if muslims knew the greatness of marxism they will support us.
and if we knew the good things in islam we will support muslims more.

god bless our freedom fighters
viva iraq, viva palestine.

well said

Sabocat

11th February 2004, 18:32

It always baffles me when people who are supposedly left or communist do not support separation of church and state.

No one is saying the articles of clothing are to be outlawed in private life, or even walking down the street. We're talking about public schools, and public government offices.

this is not the first time this happeneds in france if im not mistaken... people should have the right to wear whatever they want... i mean whether someone wears something shouldn't kill or hurt anyone not unless they are wearing clothes made from human skin or something like that

What if it's offensive to the non-religious? I guess their rights aren't as important as the god-fearin' eh?

Invader Zim

11th February 2004, 21:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 07:32 PM
It always baffles me when people who are supposedly left or communist do not support separation of church and state.

No one is saying the articles of clothing are to be outlawed in private life, or even walking down the street. We're talking about public schools, and public government offices.

this is not the first time this happeneds in france if im not mistaken... people should have the right to wear whatever they want... i mean whether someone wears something shouldn't kill or hurt anyone not unless they are wearing clothes made from human skin or something like that

What if it's offensive to the non-religious? I guess their rights aren't as important as the god-fearin' eh?
ohh please, your a smart guy surley you can see that this is only the beginning. Alienation of muslims today a French anti Muslim Kristallnacht tomorrow.

This is obviously the first step in Chirac's obviously racist election ploy, to get the support of the conservatives in France, and most conservatives hate immigrants, and France has a large Muslim community, they are the obvious target for conservative bigots.

BuyOurEverything

12th February 2004, 01:32

i would like to answer this question.
comandante malte with respect what do you know about islam ( not bin-laden's or taliban's).
i am not a religious guy but when i studied islam i found that it's really close to marxism from many points for example:

Obviously, there are different sects of any religion but just because they don't all fly planes into buildings, it doesn't mean they're all good. Islam is nothing like Marxism, and saying things like that just demonstrate your ignorane of either Islam or Marxism, my guess is the latter.

-islam fights capatlism

So does feudalism. Frankly, I'd rather live in capitalism than an Islamic theocracy, although the two don't neccessarily (or even often) negate each other. In fact, I'd like to know what basis you have for that claim

-islam gave woman a lot of rights exept the clothes thing.

Oh, wow, how thoughtful of Islam! That's one of the most condesending statements I've read in a long time. It gives them 'a lot of rights?' Anything less than absolute equality is nauseating, and you even admit that Islam forces women to dress in certain ways. Quite baffling.

-islam orders people to revolute against dectators and emperialists.

No it doesn't.

do you know that there is a wing in islam that says the hijab isn't a must and there is a book for dr.moh shahrour that says that.

There's a wing of Islam that ways the white race was created from pigs by Jews in a lab too. That means nothing.

yes i am a marxist and i'll always be but spiritualy i need islam to calm my soul.

Ever heard of religion is the opiate of the masses? Oh, forget it... You cannot be a Marxist and be religious.

in the arab region, we have a problem in getting people to read about marxism, and that's because they think if you are a marxist, you are an enemy to islam and god.

Haha, you said it, not me. Islam, as well as every other religion, entirely goes against Marxism.

and now our new generation of marxists and socialists are trying to wipe that idea, cause if you want the support of those billion muslims we must get to a middle point.

This is also known as 'selling out.' Ya know, if we allowed people to practice capitalism, we could probably expand Marxism's numbers even more...

cause alone our percentage is almost 0% .

Incorrect.

believe me if muslims knew the greatness of marxism they will support us.

I agree, but in doing so, they would cease to be Muslim.

and if we knew the good things in islam we will support muslims more.

I think we've all seen the 'good things in Islam.' No thanks.

And ihatebush, you're an idiot for supporting him.

Sabocat

12th February 2004, 10:39

ohh please, your a smart guy surley you can see that this is only the beginning. Alienation of muslims today a French anti Muslim Kristallnacht tomorrow.

I don't see this as alienation of Muslim's, as they have outlawed Jewish and Christian icons as well. I don't think banning religious symbols in schools is anywhere near bringing about a "Kristallnacht". As far as I know, the French government hasn't swept into the Muslim neighborhoods and started exterminating them, nor do I think that is their intention. I just don't think the world would allow another mass genocide of a race. Other than the one going on in Iraq of course. ;)

This is obviously the first step in Chirac's obviously racist election ploy, to get the support of the conservatives in France, and most conservatives hate immigrants, and France has a large Muslim community, they are the obvious target for conservative bigots.

I will agree with you that most conservatives are hateful of immigrants. I see it in the U$ all the time. Not knowing Chirac personally, I couldn't say if he has racist intentions with this law or not, however you state that France has a large Muslim population but I would bet you that the Christian and Jewish population is larger. If this is coming down to racism and cultural bigotry, then how come no one is railing for the Christian and Jewish population as well? The rules apply equally to them. It's not strictly a Muslim issue.

Again I would ask.

This ban applies only to public schools and government offices. Why wouldn't you want to keep religion out of state offices and schools? No one is telling anyone that they can't wear this stuff out of school, in their homes, on the streets. It's strictly an issue of separation of church and state.

Invader Zim

12th February 2004, 11:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:39 AM

ohh please, your a smart guy surley you can see that this is only the beginning. Alienation of muslims today a French anti Muslim Kristallnacht tomorrow.

I don't see this as alienation of Muslim's, as they have outlawed Jewish and Christian icons as well. I don't think banning religious symbols in schools is anywhere near bringing about a "Kristallnacht". As far as I know, the French government hasn't swept into the Muslim neighborhoods and started exterminating them, nor do I think that is their intention. I just don't think the world would allow another mass genocide of a race. Other than the one going on in Iraq of course. ;)

This is obviously the first step in Chirac's obviously racist election ploy, to get the support of the conservatives in France, and most conservatives hate immigrants, and France has a large Muslim community, they are the obvious target for conservative bigots.

I will agree with you that most conservatives are hateful of immigrants. I see it in the U$ all the time. Not knowing Chirac personally, I couldn't say if he has racist intentions with this law or not, however you state that France has a large Muslim population but I would bet you that the Christian and Jewish population is larger. If this is coming down to racism and cultural bigotry, then how come no one is railing for the Christian and Jewish population as well? The rules apply equally to them. It's not strictly a Muslim issue.

Again I would ask.

This ban applies only to public schools and government offices. Why wouldn't you want to keep religion out of state offices and schools? No one is telling anyone that they can't wear this stuff out of school, in their homes, on the streets. It's strictly an issue of separation of church and state.
I don't see this as alienation of Muslim's, as they have outlawed Jewish and Christian icons as well.

Yeah but Christians and Jews dont wear cloathing for specific relgious reasons, etc. The only Christian cloathing/decerative icon I can think of are Crucifix’s and Dog collars. And I very much doubt that your going to see a kid walk into school wearing a priests dog collar. The Crucifix is small and can easily go unnoticed (most likely deliberately), a head scarf on the other hand can not go unnoticed.

I don't think banning religious symbols in schools is anywhere near bringing about a "Kristallnacht".

The Nazi's stripped the Jews of many social/political rights in attempts to alienate them before Kristallnacht, I see this attack on eastern religions, the Muslim Faith in particular as being no different.

As far as I know, the French government hasn't swept into the Muslim neighborhoods and started exterminating them,

The Final solution began in January 1942, the Chirac is still in 1934.

nor do I think that is their intention

The Nazi's never intended mass execution, until they realised that they were expanding to quickly to chase and expel Jews from Germany, as France is not expanding at all, I imagine they [French conservatives] merely wish do the same. After all no "Hermann Göring" equivalent has come been assigned to the Muslim question... yet.

I just don't think the world would allow another mass genocide of a race.

Really? Well it didn't stop the mass genocide committed by Milosovic, It didn't stop the Tutsis either, It didn't stop Saddam Hussein trying to wipe out the Shi'a and the Kurds.

however you state that France has a large Muslim population but I would bet you that the Christian and Jewish population is larger.

Undoubtedly, but does that give the Christians and Jews the right to marginalize the Muslim community?

If this is coming down to racism and cultural bigotry, then how come no one is railing for the Christian and Jewish population as well

Like I said before, Christians and Jews do not generally wear religious items, with the possible exception of Crucifix, which I would Imagine would go unnoticed, and that is obvious.

No one is telling anyone that they can't wear this stuff out of school, in their homes, on the streets.

Like I said Kristallnacht's tomorrow.

Sabocat

12th February 2004, 12:22

Yeah but Christians and Jews dont wear cloathing for specific relgious reasons, etc.

Are you forgetting Ash Wednesday and the like? Lots of Christians wear overt crosses etc. Orthodox Jews wear yarmulkes (skull caps) regularly.

Well it didn't stop the mass genocide committed by Milosovic

From all that I've read, it has yet to really be determined that Milosovic commited the atrocities attributed to him.

Undoubtedly, but does that give the Christians and Jews the right to marginalize the Muslim community

How are the Christians and Jews marginalizing the Muslims when they are included in the law as well?

Don't you think that by not allowing religion based clothing and icons at school it will help to break down cultural barriers? My thinking is that if your remove the "in your face" display of religion, it will aid in breaking stereotypes and discrimination.

Do you think schools should allow manger scenes depicting the birth of Christ at Christmas? Should public schools allow celebrations for each religious holiday to be depicted in the schools? Should the "state" be in the business of condoning, encouraging religions?

Invader Zim

12th February 2004, 13:17

Are you forgetting Ash Wednesday and the like?

No, because how many kids have you seen come to school with a cross inscribed on their heads with dust? If it happens next lent, I will, in all my years of school, have increased my tally to one.

Lots of Christians wear overt crosses etc.

Like I said before, crosses are small and usually hidden beneath cloathing (granted they can be obvious as you pointed out), most of the time you just see a chain, or whatever not the actual cross. I would imagine it would be very difficult to police this rule for Catholics etc, as Crosses are so small. A headscarf on the other hand is so obvious this would be impossible.

From all that I've read, it has yet to really be determined that Milosovic commited the atrocities attributed to him.

Well I have seen pictures of Mass graves discovered after the people ousted him, but thats a different debate.

How are the Christians and Jews marginalizing the Muslims when they are included in the law as well?

They do not wear as many plainly religious icons as Muslims, basically Christians and Jews are being included in a law which doesn't really effect them, it does effect Muslims though. Chirac knows this and is still continuing with this legislation.

Don't you think that by not allowing religion based clothing and icons at school it will help to break down cultural barriers?

Possibly, but then again the Muslim community may well get very pissed off and retreat further into isolation from their cultural oppressors, and actually make the situation worse.

Do you think schools should allow manger scenes depicting the birth of Christ at Christmas?

To be quite honist it doesnt bother me in the slightest, so I dont really care if they do.

Should public schools allow celebrations for each religious holiday to be depicted in the schools?

Again it doesn't bother me, as long as I get the bank holiday off. ;)

Should the "state" be in the business of condoning, encouraging religions?

The government should not have anything to do with religion period, if people want to wear religious icons it is absolutly none of the governments buisness. It is only the buisness of those who wear the cloathing.

Sabocat

12th February 2004, 14:17

No, because how many kids have you seen come to school with a cross inscribed on their heads with dust? If it happens next lent, I will, in all my years of school, have increased my tally to one.

That's interesting. When I was in school, probably half of the students would walk around with the ash smudge all day. Even today, during the course of work, I see it a lot.

Like I said before, crosses are small and usually hidden beneath cloathing (granted they can be obvious as you pointed out), most of the time you just see a chain, or whatever not the actual cross. I would imagine it would be very difficult to police this rule for Catholics etc, as Crosses are so small. A headscarf on the other hand is so obvious this would be impossible.

I will concede that crosses can be hidden under clothing (where they should be if they're going to be worn), and as such doesn't necessarily make it as restrictive to the Christians as the Muslims, but you haven't addressed the Jewish skull caps. That's clothing openly displayed. This law is just as restrictive to Jews and/or Hasidic Jews.

The government should not have anything to do with religion period, if people want to wear religious icons it is absolutly none of the governments buisness. It is only the buisness of those who wear the cloathing.

That's my point exactly. The government shouldn't have anything to do with religion. It is only the business of the government when it is openly advocated/displayed/represented in a government building or public school. Public schools are an extension of the public government. The government should ensure that no religion is advocated. It should be the responsibility of the "state" to ensure that it is completely neutral. It should be a neutral environment for learning without the expression of religion.

I like to think of this debate along the lines of the no smoking designated buildings. No one cares if you smoke, just don't do it around people uncomfortable or bothered by it. The state shouldn't be in the business of advocating or facilitating smoking. ;)

redstar2000

12th February 2004, 17:45

...surely you can see that this is only the beginning. Alienation of Muslims today, a French anti-Muslim Kristallnacht tomorrow.

And death camps for European Muslims the day after, right???

Once again, Enema, you set new records for stupidity!

The Nazi's stripped the Jews of many social/political rights in attempts to alienate them before Kristallnacht, I see this attack on eastern religions, the Muslim Faith in particular as being no different.

You have your head so far up your ass that you would need a glass navel to "see" anything.

Item: the Nazis considered the Jews to be an evil "race"...it was not a matter of "conversion to Christianity" or even secularization.

Item: the Nazis did not focus on Jewish "religious clothing"--in fact, the Nazis made Jews wear a large "star of David" to show emphatically that they were Jews.

Item: there has been no "Kristallnacht" in France--an organized campaign of terror against French Muslims--nor is there a shred of evidence in support of even the possibility of such a thing.

Your nauseating attempts to defend superstition at any cost have reached desperate levels.

Your suggestion that the French conservatives are planning genocide against French Muslims is so bizarre that it's clear you have totally lost touch with political realities.

I note further that you are "not bothered" by Christian "manger" propaganda in public schools.

That fits quite well with your increasingly reactionary outlook.

You belong in Opposing Ideologies.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

acg4_9

12th February 2004, 18:12

what ignorance!! commrade (buyoureverything), is it a hobby only to say no or i disagree. read well and understand carefully before judging. i said islam is close to marxism from many points i didn't say islam is marxism. now what do you know about islam so you can compare it with marxism you don know shit i know if you want to say that something isn't like something you must know them both and that is called logic -spell it with me- L O G I C .

QUOTE
-islam fights capatlism

So does feudalism. Frankly, I'd rather live in capitalism than an Islamic theocracy, although the two don't neccessarily (or even often) negate each other. In fact, I'd like to know what basis you have for that claim

islam was the first to say that earth is for eveybody he refused to let the things that have affect on the people to be owned to a person or a group it put large taxes on the capitalists....etc.
you'd rather live in capatilism ?!! if you think like this why don't you go and fight with the americans in iraq. a real marxist commrade says i won't live in both of them not prefere an enemy on an other - i understood that they are both your enemy.

QUOTE
-islam gave woman a lot of rights exept the clothes thing.

Oh, wow, how thoughtful of Islam! That's one of the most condesending statements I've read in a long time. It gives them 'a lot of rights?' Anything less than absolute equality is nauseating, and you even admit that Islam forces women to dress in certain ways. Quite baffling.

at the period when islam was established there were no rights for woman.
now there is a wing that gives freedom to women more than the west but this wing is fought by extremists and capatalists because thay want the one billion muslim to have only two choices capatilism or taliban .

QUOTE
-islam orders people to revolute against dectators and emperialists.

No it doesn't.

you just want to say no. ok commrade who's bombing hiself in palestine and iraq instead of saying (no it doesn't). learn from them because saying no is easy but working and fighting that is the hard thing. so learn and help instead of sitting and talking.

QUOTE
in the arab region, we have a problem in getting people to read about marxism, and that's because they think if you are a marxist, you are an enemy to islam and god.

Haha, you said it, not me. Islam, as well as every other religion, entirely goes against Marxism.

haha so you achieved something. congratulations cause we're talking here not to exchange knowledge but to compete !!!!
yes, muslims think that we are there enemy but a lot of muslims love che castro the ussr ...etc so why don't we show them that if they want freedom equality and peace, we will fight with them and that we want the best for humans and that we don't hate them we disagree in some points but we don't take them as enemies .

QUOTE
and now our new generation of marxists and socialists are trying to wipe that idea, cause if you want the support of those billion muslims we must get to a middle point.

This is also known as 'selling out.' Ya know, if we allowed people to practice capitalism, we could probably expand Marxism's numbers even more...

QUOTE
cause alone our percentage is almost 0% .

Incorrect.

no it's correct and stop living this lie that we have large affect on the world we can but it's the ones like you that chase people away from us and that put us in this position instead of being in the leading position in revolutionary movements.

QUOTE
and if we knew the good things in islam we will support muslims more.

I think we've all seen the 'good things in Islam.' No thanks

you returned here to be ignorant......again. stop looking through a tube and see the bigger picture.

And ihatebush, you're an idiot for supporting him.

ladies and gentlemen that is -what you can say- respecting each others point of view.

commrade, alone we won't achieve a thing.

commrade ihatebush your posts show knowledge. thanks for the support.

sorry for the language

God bless our freedom fighters
viva Palestine, viva Iraq

Invader Zim

12th February 2004, 19:22

Has that priest not completed his god given duty yet? Obviously not... a pitty as it seems I will have to wade throught the vast pool of ignorance that generaly come with your posts.

And death camps for European Muslims the day after, right???

Well if you bothered to read what I said (which was: -"The Nazi's never intended mass execution, until they realised that they were expanding to quickly to chase and expel Jews from Germany, as France is not expanding at all, I imagine they [French conservatives] merely wish do the same. ") you will get the answer to that. You are taking what I said far to literally, as well, I have not seen Disgustapated come out with a foolish outburst such as this. Has your dislike for me eroded what small reason you had left?

Once again, Enema, you set new records for stupidity!

Really? Well as we have already established your inability to read what is placed in front of you renders your view rather imaterial, at this point.

You have your head so far up your ass that you would need a glass navel to "see" anything.

Coming from an aged man, who spends vast amounts of his time, arguing with Teenagers online, for only one apparent reason, which is to scream at those who disagree, and attempt to badger the "political heathens" into submission. That is an incredibly hypocritical thing to say. But then again, this is you after all...

the Nazis considered the Jews to be an evil "race"

Well done, you've mastered the obvious.

the Nazis did not focus on Jewish "religious clothing"--in fact, the Nazis made Jews wear a large "star of David" to show emphatically that they were Jews.

I said: - The Nazi's stripped the Jews of many social/political rights

Just like the conservatives in France are doing, just because they are going in a different method to oppress from the Nazi's, doesn't stop it being oppression. Your utter inability to read anything said is even more shocking than usual.

there has been no "Kristallnacht" in France

You are still taking that far to litterally, I was making a comparison between the small steps involved at the beginning of Hitlers regime to oppress Jews, and the first step in oppressing Muslims in France.

And as I said "Kristallnacht" tommorow, the conclusion that there has been no such even in France. When will you read what is written and not just what you want to be written.

Your suggestion that the French conservatives are planning genocide against French Muslims is so bizarre that it's clear you have totally lost touch with political realities.

I haven't suggested any such thing, infact if you read what I said, I clearly stated that I did not think genocide would occur. Try reading the whole post, not just little snipets which suit you.

I note further that you are "not bothered" by Christian "manger" propaganda in public schools.

Why should I be bothered by it? All it is is a bunch of kids, up on stage, to bore the life out of their parents, its practically a tradition. Just like Christmas doesnt bother me, just like easter doesn't bother me.

That fits quite well with your increasingly reactionary outlook.

Well you make it quite clear, that you fail to even know what a reactionary outlook is.

You belong in Opposing Ideologies.

No, but you belong in a mental asylum, such as Bedlam. Whats the one in New York? Belview? Well anyway, i'm sure suitable arrangments can be made, I suggest that you visit a docter and demand to be sectioned... its for the good of the people.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers
A site written by the mentaly unstable

Stapler

12th February 2004, 19:41

Although i'm an atheist I study religion. Religion is something taht people hold very dear, and are willing to fight to protect. Since Judaism, Islam, and Christianity preach the same moral values, I don't see why members of either religion should take offense to the symbolism of these other religions. Culture and religion are vital to some humans who require guidance where no other guidance exists, and overtly repressing religion is inviting backlash.

redstar2000

13th February 2004, 07:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:41 PM
Although I'm an atheist I study religion. Religion is something that people hold very dear, and are willing to fight to protect...Culture and religion are vital to some humans who require guidance where no other guidance exists, and overtly repressing religion is inviting backlash.
If you learned to be an atheist, don't you think that other people can learn it to?

Who are these mysterious people who "require guidance"?

Why them and not us?

It's probably true that there are hundreds of millions of people on the planet today who are ready to die and kill for "God".

That's religion for you!

But is that a "given", a "fixed attribute" of humans?

Clearly that can't be right...otherwise you and I could not exist.

The fact that atheism exists and continues to grow in the advanced capitalist countries--inspite of everything that governments and businesses do to "promote religion"--suggests that the time will indeed come when most people will want nothing more to do with superstitious nonsense.

Suppression of religion in public life will, in my opinion, speed that time's coming.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Severian

17th February 2004, 18:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:32 AM
No, I can not agree to this. If you want, Chirac is consitently pushing through the ideals of the bourgois revolution and the progressive (bourgois) idea of secularism.
The fact is that the French government gives money to Christian religious schools. If they wanted to be secular, they could start there. Any claim to be backing secularism with the head-scarf ban is obvious nonsense.

And, in fact, nobody believes it. Everyone in French politics knows this is aimed against Muslims. Politicians supporting the ban have argued that France is a Christian nation.

Secularism requires that the government refrain from supporting some religions and from persecuting others. The French government fails on both counts.

Secularism does not require a ban on the religious expression of individuals, whether that involves wearing a headscarf, a cross, or whatever.

As the main slogan of one demonstration against the headscarf ban put it: "Secularism yes, Islamophobia no!"

Kez

17th February 2004, 19:05

Look, over the issue of whether the move is progressive or not

Does the move increase workers consiousness?
-No, it simply splits workers

Is the govt one which increase consiousness or has improved workers conditions?
-No, this is the same govt which fucked the pensions, and is propped up by big business

Therefore, this move is not progressive,

However, if it was a move by the mass of the workers then this would be progressive, why?

Workers would unite for this move, hence increase class consiousness

This same united force could then move to create its own workers policy, which is pretty fuckin progressive

therefore, such a policy can only be progressive if formulated, put into practice, and enforced by workers, not the bourgeoise.

Severian

17th February 2004, 21:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:05 PM

However, if it was a move by the mass of the workers then this would be progressive, why?

Workers would unite for this move, hence increase class consiousness
Would they?

If this same policy was carried out by a workers' government, it would still be more likely to divide workers and turn Muslim workers against the revolution. Muslim workers might reasonably conclude that the new, "revolutionary" government was continuing the oppressive, racist and Islamophobic policies of the old capitalist government.

I mean, similar actions have been taken by governments calling themselves communist, and the effect has in fact been to divide workers.

A better policy, IMO, was that of the early Soviet government, as expressed in its "Appeal to all toiling Muslims of Russia and the East":

"All you whose mosques and shrines have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled on by the czars and the Russian oppressors! Henceforth your beliefs and customs, your national and cultural institutions are declared free and inviolable. Build your national life freely and without hindrance. It is your right. Know that your rights - like those of all the peoples of Russia - are defended by the full force of the revolution and its organs, the soviets of workers', soldiers', and peasants' deputies."

redstar2000

17th February 2004, 23:53

The fact is that the French government gives money to Christian religious schools. If they wanted to be secular, they could start there. Any claim to be backing secularism with the head-scarf ban is obvious nonsense.

I quite agree; Chirac's motives, like those of any bourgeois politician, are cynical and self-serving.

However, as noted earlier in this thread and its predecessor, Chirac's motives are irrelevant. The net effect is a (small) blow at religion in public life and I therefore enthusiastically support it.

When the law comes up for review, by the way, French Socialist Party members have suggested that it be extended to include all religious paraphernalia...even those little crucifixes on chains.

As to French subsidies to Christian schools, that is indeed deplorable, if true.

But keep in mind that subsidies or no, Christianity is a shrinking religion in France (and Europe generally) while Islam is still growing.

All you whose mosques and shrines have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled on by the czars and the Russian oppressors! Henceforth your beliefs and customs, your national and cultural institutions are declared free and inviolable. Build your national life freely and without hindrance. It is your right. Know that your rights - like those of all the peoples of Russia - are defended by the full force of the revolution and its organs, the soviets of workers', soldiers', and peasants' deputies.

Their biggest "national institution" was the clan or tribe and aside from the generalized persecution of women, their main "custom" was the bribe.

Indeed, I've held for some time the suspicion that one of the earliest physical sources of corruption in the USSR came from the southern and Asiatic "republics"...nepotism and the "politics of influence" along with "gifts" (bribes) were the social norm for those folks.

By "tolerating" those things, the USSR incorporated some of its first grave-diggers.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Severian

20th February 2004, 09:28

Well, gee, thanks for making your bigotry crystal clear.

Atheism, like anything else, can become a religion in the mind of a dogmatic and intolerant person. (Heck, we've seen that can happen with Marxism, too.)

And, like the dogmatists of any religion, you want to forcibly eliminate competing clergy before they can corrupt the souls of the faithful.

redstar2000

20th February 2004, 10:23

Well, gee, thanks for making your bigotry crystal clear.

Always happy to be of service. I am indeed "bigoted" against all forms of superstition...I have "pre-judged" them to be bullshit.

And I've "pre-judged" their defenders -- like yourself and some others here -- to be either confused or opportunistic bullshitters themselves.

I believe you and your party -- the Socialist Workers Party (U.S.) -- probably qualify for the latter designation.

"Bigot" that I am!

Atheism, like anything else, can become a religion in the mind of a dogmatic and intolerant person.

This is what you offer in response to the explicit points in my last post!

Waahhh! You're a bigot and intolerant!

A crushing retort!

And, like the dogmatists of any religion, you want to forcibly eliminate competing clergy before they can corrupt the souls of the faithful.

Developing a taste for bourgeois liberalism these days? Please forgive me if I don't join you...there's something about the smell of shit that just puts me off my appetite.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

redstar2000

20th February 2004, 22:14

And speaking of shit, there's this...

Police in Pakistan's remote Northern Areas said on Friday that a ninth school in five days had been attacked and destroyed.

Local officials have blamed hardline Islamists opposed to female education.

Eight of the schools were for girls, although the latest - burned down in a village near the town of Chilas on Thursday - was a boys' school.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/3507401.stm

The problem with reading and writing is that sooner or later it leads to...atheism.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Comrade BNS

21st February 2004, 06:52

Reagardless of whether or not you support religion, the state should NEVER under any circumstances be able to dictate what an individual can and cannot wear....regardless of it's representations and connotations.

Question to "yes i am arab": are you a communist or a Muslim? Don't wanna be disrepectful of your faith, but you can't be both IMO.

Ever heard of the Mujahidin? read some more about them...

The French gov't is wrong to ban headscarves as they are NOT a religious symbol. The hijab is a cultural dictate, co-opted by the Islamic faith to enslave women. It is a dictate based on incorrect interpretation of the Koran. The French gov't and so-called devout muslims are both paddling up shit creek.

The holy communion with christ as practiced in Catholicism is not set down specifically in the New Testament, but is still part of the religion. The Qu'ran asks ALL believers to dress modestly, not just females. Now how you interpret that is up to you.

In the case of Islam, in particular, there is "no pope" and conflicting interpretations of the Koran are common.

Not only are conflicitng interpretations common, but they are required of believers, the problem with Islam at the moment, is that few believers are aware of their individual right to interpret the Qu'ran, and so accept the spoon fed classical interpretations from Islam's unofficial clergy.

i would like to answer this question.
comandante malte with respect what do you know about islam ( not bin-laden's or taliban's).
i am not a religious guy but when i studied islam i found that it's really close to marxism from many points for example:
-islam fights capatlism
-islam says that all humans are equal
-islam gave woman a lot of rights exept the clothes thing.
-islam orders people to revolute against dectators and emperialists.
do you know that there is a wing in islam that says the hijab isn't a must and there is a book for dr.moh shahrour that says that.
yes i am a marxist and i'll always be but spiritualy i need islam to calm my soul.
in the arab region, we have a problem in getting people to read about marxism, and that's because they think if you are a marxist, you are an enemy to islam and god. and now our new generation of marxists and socialists are trying to wipe that idea, cause if you want the support of those billion muslims we must get to a middle point. cause alone our percentage is almost 0% .
believe me if muslims knew the greatness of marxism they will support us.
and if we knew the good things in islam we will support muslims more.

god bless our freedom fighters
viva iraq, viva palestine.

very true...Indeed the name of the Religion "Islam" is based on the Arabic word for peace "salam"

don't be so quick to judge ideologies, explore the history of Islam and i'm sure you will find it has been a great liberating force for many... and yes by the same token has some nasty points too!

Comrade BNS

redstar2000

21st February 2004, 07:27

Indeed the name of the Religion "Islam" is based on the Arabic word for peace "salam"

That ain't how I heard it.

Islam means "submission" (by implication, to the "will of Allah") and Muslim means "one who submits" (to the "will of Allah").

If I'm right about that, then Islam is remarkably blunt about its central purpose.

A doctrine common to nearly all religions with developed theologies starts with "submission to God" and continues on to "submission to Earthly authorities" "because" they were appointed by "God" to rule.

Resistance to Earthly authority is only permissible if that authority abandons the "true faith" or persecutes the believers of the "true faith".

The pious Muslim can only rebel against his ruler if that ruler departs from Islamic "law" or actually ceases to be a Muslim.

This is more or less true for believers in any religion who actually take it seriously.

Thus when believers try to argue that "their religion" in some sense is "communist" or "anticipates communism" or is "progressive" in some way, you know that they are either confused or they are running a scam.

What they all really want is a set-up where their faith is the only faith and nonbelievers are tortured and executed as an object lesson to those who might be tempted to "listen to the devil".

Of course, this is only when they get the chance to behave like they really want to. "Until then", hey, it's "peace & love" and "tolerance" and all that crap.

Believe them at your peril!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Danton

21st February 2004, 10:14

This afternoon in Knightsbridge, London. "30 Coach loads" of Turban wearing Sikh's will stage a demonstration outside the French Embassy. There are an estimated 500.00 Sikhs in Britain, 80% of which are practicing, only 39% of these attend a weekly Gudwara/Sikh church which are conducted in Punjabi, a language in terminal decline amongst Britains Sikh community..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3508677.stm

This legislation isn't even in place in France yet where, they are in fact making noises about concessions to the Sikhs some of whom claim the Turban is an extension of thier bodies

" Sikhs view the turban as much a part of their body as their limbs"

Jagroop Singh, AKJ

I think any concessions will give fuel to Muslim agitators who insist the move is intended to persecute them, this legislation is all about equality, secularity, intergration and liberation for Women and Children from parental and cultural coercion..

DarkAngel

21st February 2004, 15:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:59 PM
I saw a famous German feminist on TV a few days ago, speaking against the head scarf as a symbol of male oppression over women in Islam, and as a symbol of the patriarchy, and I'm tending to agree with her. (don't nail me for this, it's not a general comment about the Islamic religion, but about the very reality of male oppresion in many Islamic countries). I totally agree with the ban of the head scarf for teachers/professors, but I somewhat doubt if it's right to force it also on the students...
I think it should be ones decision to wear it or not. If a successful business women does not want to wear the head scarf why should she? She support herself and possibly even her children and husband. Now its a different story if a parent would like their child to wear one, then ok.

__________________________________________________ ______
Wow just read the last page, some heated discussion.

The problem with reading and writing is that sooner or later it leads to...atheism.

I agree 100%. These sexist males in that part of the world have it locked in their heads ''Men must rule, women are only good for fuck and house work''. It pisses me off so much. These terrorist or rebels (what ever they were) are willing to kill their own people because they have the need for knowledge. What does that say about rebels?