French ban on the veil

[Invader Zim]

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=514295

[God of Imperia]

That's rather old news, it was a large debate. They argued that school is a public place and in a public place there should be no sign of any kind of religion. The veil is a sign of the Islam so they banned it out of school. I think it is rediculous. The teachers shouldn't wear a veil, I agree on that, but the students? It's a personal thing, it has nothing to do with the society or with people trying to win others for their religion ...

[Invader Zim]

Yes i realise the debate is old, but the fact that it is completely unworkable and falling to pieces is still funny.

[Severian]

Well, good. The alternative is that many Muslim girls would be kept out of school by their families, or sent to private Muslim schools. Either alternative would leave them much less well-educated and much less free.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:39 PM
Well, good. The alternative is that many Muslim girls would be kept out of school by their families, or sent to private Muslim schools. Either alternative would leave them much less well-educated and much less free.
So? If their families try to keep their child home, then let the state step in and remove the child from such a dysfuncational household and place them into an environment that would promote the healthy development of the child. Ban private schools, or at very least hold them to extremely strict standards, regulate them, and cut off all federal funding and tax them to make private schools prohibitively expensive. Besides, head coverings aren't allowed in schools, and it isn't fair to let those people break the rules because of their religion unless we let everyone else break the rules for their beliefs too. I hear there is a belief (don't remember what the name is) that requires its followers to keep a dagger on them at all times, so shall we allow children to run around the playground wielding knifes next?

[Touchstone]

Oh, and with the quality of public schools and all that is such a good decision. Friggn idiot. Anyway, what kind of structure is that where a child is torn away from a home, placed into a conformist and defeating system? Have you ever read Farenhiet 451? There is a point where you cut off (no pun intended) the lenency in freeedom of religion. The knife thing? nah. That would be dumb. My school is VERY strongly against my Anti-Nazi shirts I made. But I wear them. A government that takes care of it's citizens is almost lunacy.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:41 PM
Oh, and with the quality of public schools and all that is such a good decision. Friggn idiot. Anyway, what kind of structure is that where a child is torn away from a home, placed into a conformist and defeating system? Have you ever read Farenhiet 451? There is a point where you cut off (no pun intended) the lenency in freeedom of religion. The knife thing? nah. That would be dumb. My school is VERY strongly against my Anti-Nazi shirts I made. But I wear them. A government that takes care of it's citizens is almost lunacy.
I never said anything there about cutting off freedom of religion. I only said that religion cannot be used as an excuse to break the rules. Anyway, what kind of structure is that where a child is placed in a dysfunctional household, and tought to be submissive to men and "God", where they are kept out of school and tought the doctrine of a 2000 year old collection of the rantings of schitsophenic maniacs? Like it or not, every environment is a conformist enviroment, even so called "non-conformist" ones. Even in those enviroments, people are encouraged to conform to the majority's ideas on non-conformism. Public schools wouldn't be so bad if politicians would stop diverting funds away them and putting them in private schools with vouchers. A government that doesn't take care of its citizens is inhumane. How can your school be against something? How can a school even take a position on anything? Did the entire school get together and unanimously declare that "We are against Touchstone's homemade anti-Nazi shirts"? Or did the Lincoln Middle School SS steal your lunch money?

[BuyOurEverything]

Touchstone, so it's anti-freedom to take a child away from an oppressive family? The public school system may be screwed up, but it's alot less conformist and defeating than religious fundamentalist private schools.


A government that takes care of it's citizens is almost lunacy.

What in the hell does that mean?

Anyways, MNM, I agree that private schools should be abolished, but I don't agree that they should just be made expensive. That would only make them more exlusive.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Did I not say
Ban private schools in my post above?

[Touchstone]

LoL, ok that was good. Yes it's anti-freedom. In the since the opressive family has the right to teach whatever they please. I'm not saying it's right, but they have the right. I totally agree with you BuyOurEverything, on the second part. Yeah, my principal called me into his office and told me to take off the shirt I had made. I live in a Southern White Town where the most culture most people get is the Passion of the Christ. A government that takes care of it's citizens is slowly destroying freedom. "Since I paid for your health bill last month, Lets raise taxes 10%" I agree with most of what MNM says.

[BuyOurEverything]

Did I not say
QUOTE
Ban private schools

in my post above?

Yes but than you followed it by:


or at very least hold them to extremely strict standards, regulate them, and cut off all federal funding and tax them to make private schools prohibitively expensive.


LoL, ok that was good. Yes it's anti-freedom. In the since the opressive family has the right to teach whatever they please. I'm not saying it's right, but they have the right.

How does that not not violate the child's rights? Freedom means freedom, not just another oppressor.


Yeah, my principal called me into his office and told me to take off the shirt I had made.

What's it say?


A government that takes care of it's citizens is slowly destroying freedom. "Since I paid for your health bill last month, Lets raise taxes 10%"

How very capitalist of you. So people that can't afford their health bill shouldn't get health care?

[Touchstone]

The Shirt is just a Nazi symbol with a red circle with a slash through it. I'm a far cry from a capitilist. I'm saying health care should be free. Not provided by the government. Notice the difference. If the child does not know he is wrong, who are we to condem him to a mis-education?

[BuyOurEverything]

No, unless you're saying that doctors should work for free, there is no difference.


If the child does not know he is wrong, who are we to condem him to a mis-education?

First, it's not about what the child thinks, it's about what their parents force on them. Second, the fact that a kid thinks they 'know' something, doesn't mean it's true. I find it very strange that you think that. Do you respect Nazis' opinions?

[Touchstone]

No. "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death." I was brought up in a Southern Christian, partly KKK town. Yet I am a Athiest and a radical anti-Nazi and anti-KKK. If the kid knows something, and it is conflicting with our opnions, who are we to tell him he is wrong if he isn't. By all means if he is a Nazi, I will tell him he is wrong in his beliefs. I don't respect Nazi's opinions, but I will defend thier right to say them to the death.

[BuyOurEverything]

If the kid knows something, and it is conflicting with our opnions, who are we to tell him he is wrong if he isn't.

I noticed you added 'if he isn't' at the end this time. This significantly changes the meaning, does it not? If a child is a Nazi, we have every right to tell them they're wrong. If a child is a fundamentalist Muslim/Christian, we have every right to tell them they're wrong. Who are we? Those who know better. If you're not willing to correct anyone's beliefs, you must not have very strong convictions yourself.

That's not really what the issue is though. It's not about correcting children, it's deciding what rights they have in the first place. Why does a 'parent' have any more right to oppress a child than anyone else?


I don't respect Nazi's opinions, but I will defend thier right to say them to the death.

You'd fight for Nazism? See you on the battlefield, dude.

[Severian]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Apr 25 2004, 03:21 PM--> (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Apr 25 2004, 03:21 PM)
[email protected] 25 2004, 04:39 PM
Well, good. The alternative is that many Muslim girls would be kept out of school by their families, or sent to private Muslim schools. Either alternative would leave them much less well-educated and much less free.
So? If their families try to keep their child home, then let the state step in and remove the child from such a dysfuncational household and place them into an environment that would promote the healthy development of the child. Ban private schools, or at very least hold them to extremely strict standards, regulate them, and cut off all federal funding and tax them to make private schools prohibitively expensive. Besides, head coverings aren't allowed in schools, and it isn't fair to let those people break the rules because of their religion unless we let everyone else break the rules for their beliefs too. I hear there is a belief (don't remember what the name is) that requires its followers to keep a dagger on them at all times, so shall we allow children to run around the playground wielding knifes next? [/b]
I was talking about the consequences in the real world, here on Planet Earth,not on Planet Midnight Marauder where it's realistic for the state to do those things.

Certainly the French state will not. If somehow it did, this would accurately be seen as Christian persecution of Muslims, as the French government even finances private Christian schools.

"Besides, head coverings aren't allowed in schools, and it isn't fair to let those people break the rules because of their religion unless we let everyone else break the rules for their beliefs too. "

circular argument. "The rules are correct because they are the rules."

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Large Christian crosses, and Jewish Yamakkas also met the ban hammer. The French have a tradition of secularism. As for the rules thing, if you let people bend the rules for their belief, then pretty soon the Islamics will start fussing about women being on TV and the playing of music. Do you understand where I am going with this arguement?

[BuyOurEverything]

Yes MNM, but your argument assumes that there is a valid reason for the ban on non-relgious head coverings in the first place, which there is not.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Children often hit each other's hats off, and throw them down, or pull them over the kids head, or something stupid like that. It provides kids with a distraction to get in the way with their learning. Besides, there is no reason there should be head coverings. (And no, spending an eternity in a self-imagined hell doesn't count.)

[Dan_Canadian]

Children often hit each other's hats off, and throw them down, or pull them over the kids head, or something stupid like that. It provides kids with a distraction to get in the way with their learning. Besides, there is no reason there should be head coverings. (And no, spending an eternity in a self-imagined hell doesn't count.)

Yea, totally man. I live in Canada, and where i'm from, people are actually allowed to practise thier religion! (outrageous) AND wear religious clothing (how perposterous). Personally, when I was in elementary school, I used to hit kids hats off ALL THE TIME, and thats why I never got past grade 5. Stupid Muslims...WHAT WERE THEY THINKING! coming to our country wearing thier distracting headware...FOOLS!

I don't think I need to say that i'm being sarcastic, but for midnights sake, i'll tell him, cause he seems quite dim.

Don't preach to me about secularism...If you wanna wear something on your head you should be able to, whether or not it is a religious headress..actually, especially if it has religious signifigance. Religion isn't a big part of my life, or yours apparently, but i'm considerate enough to notice that to some ppl it is VERY important and therefore should be respected.

[Hoppe]

I would suspect that people striving for equality would welcome the French ruling. Nowhere in the Qu'ran is written that women should wear veils (or burquas or chadors). The only thing veils represent is "the hand of the man on the head of the woman", or that the woman is less than the man.

So the French government is actually liberating the oppressed women. The fact that they perhaps choose to wear it voluntarily, just makes them ignorant. Very peculiar that some of you condemn (organised) religion yet choose to regard islamic veils as "freedom".

[El Che]

So the French government is actually liberating the oppressed women. The fact that they perhaps choose to wear it voluntarily, just makes them ignorant. Very peculiar that some of you condemn (organised) religion yet choose to regard islamic veils as "freedom".

It's not peculiar at all. Tolerance and Religious Freedom are progressive par excelance. The notion that "we know better", however, is not.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 04:54 AM
Nowhere in the Qu'ran is written that women should wear veils (or burquas or chadors).
And where in the "Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen" is it written that they can't?

Why are those who legally force girls not to wear a headscarf more progressive than those who force them to wear it? I see little difference.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 12:00 PM
And where in the "Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen" is it written that they can't?

Why are those who legally force girls not to wear a headscarf more progressive than those who force them to wear it? I see little difference.
Nowhere, but veils and islam have little to do with eachother.

Since the masses need to be educated, why not use the force of the government? And since when is liberating oppressed people not progressive?


It's not peculiar at all. Tolerance and Religious Freedom are progressive par excelance. The notion that "we know better", however, is not

Can man voluntarily choose to be the slave of someone else?

Tolerance is bullshit. Cultures are not equal. Ever tried to build a catholic church in Iran?

[El Che]

Can man voluntarily choose to be the slave of someone else?


Tolerance has limits. I can get into more details on this if you want to know my personal views but the statement I made is generally correct. I don't advocate tolerance of everything though.


Tolerance is bullshit.

Right-wing xenophobia is bullshit.


Cultures are not equal.

What are you getting at? Some cultures are better than others? Can't cultures mix?

This statement, by itself, does not make any kind of argument.

[Hoppe]

Right-wing xenophobia is bullshit

No it isn't xenophobia. Cultural relativism is stupid. You can hardly call backward islamic countries enlightened. Or people who see women as means of reproducing as many boys as possible.


Can't cultures mix?


Of course they can. Yet people have to acknowledge the values of the respective country, and in the western world, man and woman are equal.

[El Che]

No it isn't xenophobia.

Looks like it to me. I don't see how the veil is any different from crosses or Jewish hats. If there is, supposedly, freedom of religion why discriminate? There is an underlying current of racism that particularly infuses the more reactionary sectors of society. We witness marches of hate disguised as protests for womens rights, what hypocrisy.


Cultural relativism is stupid.

Culture is determined mainly by economic realities. Note that Religion does not equal culture. That is a very narrow, self serving, view. Christianity is not in itself any more "advanced" than Islam. It is simply its presence that has changed in advanced Capitalist nations due to the historical development to which people in these societies owe a relatively greater degree of "enlightenment".


Yet people have to acknowledge the values of the respective country, and in the western world, man and woman are equal.


Women are not equal in Capitalist society. To the contrary: they join the ranks of oppressed "minorities".

Christianity is in no way less misogynist. It too asserts man is superior to woman, that woman should obey men, etc. Your failure to recognize this demonstrates your, perhaps subconscious, ethnic, or if you like "civilizational" prejucide. In this sense a cross is also offensive to women due to what it represents. If you want to apply a principal at least have the decency to apply it impartially.

[lucid]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 27 2004, 02:00 PM
Women are not equal in Capitalist society. To the contrary: they join the ranks of oppressed "minorities".

Someone hand this guy a shovel so he can dig a little better.

I don't know where you have been in the last 40 years but woman rights have come a long way. I have worked for females for the last 5 years. I guess it's just more fun to talk trash about capitalism instead of recognizing the fact that woman rights have gotten a lot better.

[El Che]

woman rights have come a long way.

This does not contradict my statement, i.e a negation of this is not implied in what I said.

[Osman Ghazi]

In Canada, (which is recognized as a far better place than the U$ to live in) the average woman makes 31,000 (CDN) whilst the average man makes 46,000. That's pretty fair.

[Hoppe]

Looks like it to me. I don't see how the veil is any different from crosses or Jewish hats. If there is, supposedly, freedom of religion why discriminate? There is an underlying current of racism that particularly infuses the more reactionary sectors of society. We witness marches of hate disguised as protests for womens rights, what hypocrisy.


My comments have nothing to do with racism. Why do orthodox jewish women have to wear wigs in public? Or why aren't reformed women not allowed to wear jeans?

Maybe you can tell your objections to Iranian women who get beat up if they show one hair in public.


Culture is determined mainly by economic realities. Note that Religion does not equal culture. That is a very narrow, self serving, view. Christianity is not in itself any more "advanced" than Islam. It is simply its presence that has changed in advanced Capitalist nations due to the historical development to which people in these societies owe a relatively greater degree of "enlightenment".

What economic reality is there to argue in favor of circumsizing women in Somalia? Or stoning women when they get raped in Pakistan? Not allowing women to see a doctor in taliban-Afghanistan? Or forcing women to marry their cousin?


Chritianity is in no way less misogynist. It too asserts man is superior to woman, that woman should obey men, etc. Your failure to recognize this demonstrates your, perhaps subconscious, ethnic, or if you like "civilizational" prejucide. In this sense a cross is also offensive to women due to what it represents. If you want to apply a principal at least have the decency to apply it impartially.

I am not failing to recognize anything. Except for the few orthodox communes still in existance we have done a pretty good job eradicating the less civilised parts of religion.

[Touchstone]

MNM, I WILL NOT SUPPORT NAZI'S EVER! The thought that I would makes me sick. I regret quoteing Voltarie.

[BuyOurEverything]

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Hoppe. Cultural relativism IS bullshit. The veil IS opressive and DOES NOT have anything to do with Islam. The fact that you compare it to the Jewish kipah reveals that you do not know the nature of either of these things.


Christianity is not in itself any more "advanced" than Islam.

Who the hell said anything about Christianity? I hate Christianity, I find it just as oppressive as Islam.

I fail to see how you can defend a culture which promotes violent mysogany in the name of 'tolerance.'


MNM, I WILL NOT SUPPORT NAZI'S EVER! The thought that I would makes me sick. I regret quoteing Voltarie.

Apology accepted :D

[DaCuBaN]

I don't know where you have been in the last 40 years but woman rights have come a long way. I have worked for females for the last 5 years. I guess it's just more fun to talk trash about capitalism instead of recognizing the fact that woman rights have gotten a lot better.

I guess you never studied history, but the soviets - especially under Stalin - were very fair about this. Women were murdered just as regularly, and the army was a pretty fair split between the sexes. In fact was it not a female regiment that stormed Hitlers bunker?

Capitalism doesn't care about peoples rights - it's all about money. SOCIALISM is about people.

[Touchstone]

The veil has some Islamic significance. Never say that the Jewish kipah is in comparison with the veil that was ignorant.

[mysticofthewest]

Touchstone right on man

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:34 PM
The veil IS opressive and DOES NOT have anything to do with Islam.
"I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Hoppe. "

Well, that should make ya stop and think for a second at least. Hoppe clearly isn't posting out of a desire to protect women's rights or anything, but out of xenophobia. That's also the motivation for the French government's policy IMO.

Well, if it has nothing to do with Islam, that knocks out the French government's excuse for banning it as a religious symbol.

"The fact that you compare it to the Jewish kipah reveals that you do not know the nature of either of these things."

The French government disagrees, as it bans both.

[BuyOurEverything]

Well, that should make ya stop and think for a second at least. Hoppe clearly isn't posting out of a desire to protect women's rights or anything, but out of xenophobia. That's also the motivation for the French government's policy IMO.


Actually, IMO, the reason for the French government's policy was to appear 'tough on terrorism.' I don't support this, but it doesn't change anything I said.


Well, if it has nothing to do with Islam, that knocks out the French government's excuse for banning it as a religious symbol.


Nobody believed that was the case in the first place.


The French government disagrees, as it bans both.

Well, I'm talking about the veil, not neccessarily the French ban on it.

[Anarchist Freedom]

the french goverment bothers me they want to ban bears what the hell is this the peter the great era? we gunna put taxes on beards? this is trully an intrusion of privacy.


:che:


CGLM! (http://www.cglm.net)

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:06 AM
Well, that should make ya stop and think for a second at least. Hoppe clearly isn't posting out of a desire to protect women's rights or anything, but out of xenophobia. That's also the motivation for the French government's policy IMO.

Well, if it has nothing to do with Islam, that knocks out the French government's excuse for banning it as a religious symbol.


You're a sad being if you immediately call me a right-wing fanatic. It is always funny to watch people like you justifying oppression if you have to choose between two oppressed people, ie the muslim minority and women.

I thank you on behalf of the muslim girls in the Paris' banlieux who get raped and beaten up every time they don't wear a veil out on the street.