Persecution of religious groups

[Severian]

This isn't a small subject. But I thought it'd be relevant to current discussion on this board, in which some people have argued that since Muslims aren't a "race", therefore it's unnecessary to oppose prejudice and discrimination against Muslims, aka Islamophobia.

The persecution of heathens and heretics is, of course, thousands of years old. So I'm going to have to review all that history for this topic.

Just kidding! I'm really going to start with the bourgeois-democratic revolutions.

Bourgeois democrats opposed all religious persecution, and supported "freedom of conscience." They suppressed all the various inquisitions.

The U.S. Bill of Rights sums up the bourgeois-democratic view on this. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The French 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen says "No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law."

As the Manifesto says "The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge." Nevertheless, communists supported - and support - the expansion of bourgeois-democratic rights.

Marx largely took this for granted, particularly when it came to "freedom of conscience." Nevertheless, he wrote "The Jewish Question" in part to argue for the political emancipation of Jews - still at that time generally considered a religious group - and oppose Bruno Bauer's argument, which made it a precondition of political emancipation that Jews and Christians both renounce their religion.

The socialist movement, in all its factions, was later to take a strong stance against anti-Semitism in all its forms. This did not depend on whether Jews were considered a religion, a nationality, or a "race".

Marx also took a scornful attitude towards Lord Palmerston (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/palmerston/ch01.htm) for his attitude towards the laws discriminating against Catholics and Dissenters in Ireland. Marx took it for granted that "religious liberty" was "one of the rights of man, not to be intermeddled with by legislature".

(Anti-Catholic bigotry also has a certain history in the U.S., BTW. Partly this was an importation of the British Isles' religious conflicts - partly a response to rapid immigration of Irish, Italian, and other Catholics. Catholics were among the targets of the KKK, for example. Even Catholic presidential candidates like Al Smith and John F Kennedy were the subject of prejudices and conspiracy theories that their election would mean the pope controlled the U.S.; only one Catholic has ever been president of the U.S.

A few of the most reactionary still promote these prejudices, from Bob Jones University to the comic-book religious tract author Jack Chick. Of course the more progressive elements of society have always stood for equal rights of people of all religions, including Catholics.)

When the Russian Revolution took place, the new Soviet government declared (in December 1917): Muslims of Russia, Tatars of the Volga and the Crimea, Kirghiz and Sarts of Siberia and Turkestan, Turks and Tatars of TransCaucasia, Chechens and mountain Cossacks! All you, whose mosques and shrines have been destroyed, whose faith and customs have been violated by the Tsars and oppressors of Russia! Henceforward 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, will be protected by the might of the revolution, by the Councils of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies!Appeal of the Council of People's Commissars to the Muslims of Russia and the East (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Appeal_of_the_Council_of_People's_Commissars_to_th e_Muslims_of_Russia_and_the_East)

But maybe this is some Leninist perversion? Sorry, no. Rosa Luxemburg also wrote: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm)
Every man may hold what faith and what opinions seem likely to him to ensure happiness. No one has the right to persecute or to attack the particular religious opinion of others. That is what the socialists think. And it is for that reason, among others, that the socialists rally all the people to fight against the Czarist regime, which is continually violating men's consciences, persecuting Catholics, Russian Catholics[1], Jews, heretics and freethinkers. It is precisely the Social-Democrats who come out most strongly in favour of freedom of conscience.

All that may seem like overkill on a fairly obvious point; yet somehow it's not obvious to some people on this board.

Religion is bad, and religious people have made a bad choice; so what do we have to do with the persecution of a religious group? Wrong.

By taking that stance, some posters on this board have fallen far from the Marxist approach; far below even the bourgeois-democratic standpoint.

[Vanguard1917]

The underlying message of your thread is that discrimination against Muslims is on the rise. This is an assumtion that is made by every section of society at the moment. That includes sections of the government, the media, the police and the general public - as well as the anti-war movement, the British SWP (whose whole programme is now based around this assumption), and most of the left generally. It is widely taken for granted that the international events of the past few years have increased 'Islamophobia' in Western countries. But we have to ask the question: is it true? Is discrimination against Muslims really on the rise?

I'd like to post two articles on the subject of 'Islamophobia' in Britain:

Article 1 (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CACE6.htm)

Article 2 (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAC6A.htm)

[Monty Cantsin]

Kenan Malik has written on this -

What Hate? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1385028,00.html)

All cultures are not eqaul (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:50 AM
The underlying message of your thread is that discrimination against Muslims is on the rise.
I don't know if it is increasing or not. It should be opposed regardless.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)The U.S. Bill of Rights sums up the bourgeois-democratic view on this. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The French 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen says "No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law."[/b]

Basically - just don't fucking bother us!

Well, that's not good enough for me. It is fucking disgusting that young children are indoctrinated into all that shit and something which should be opposed.

Severian seems to be of the opinion that as long as the God-squad don't bother him, then he won't bother them - I doubt he would protest them even if they were in the process of burning him.

Anyway, that is simply a "cop-out". Communists want to destroy class society and all the shit that goes with it.

Which means that I will no more tolerate God babble than I will sexism. Simple as, simple does.


Severian
When the Russian Revolution took place....

Bourgeois revolutions = "bourgeois democratic" measures. :)

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Severian+Feb 20 2006, 08:46 PM--> (Severian @ Feb 20 2006, 08:46 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 03:50 AM
The underlying message of your thread is that discrimination against Muslims is on the rise.
I don't know if it is increasing or not. It should be opposed regardless. [/b]
Not if all other religious people are discriminated againts equally :)

[barret]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2006, 09:41 PM


Anyway, that is simply a "cop-out". Communists want to destroy class society and all the shit that goes with it.

Which means that I will no more tolerate God babble than I will sexism. Simple as, simple does.


Are you advocating for the abolishment of religion? I 'd have to agree on the god babble , I receive so much crap from those " Jew's for Jesus" because my form of Judaism doesn't guarantee me a free ticket to heaven in accordance to their religion.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Are you advocating for the abolishment of religion?

YESSSS!!!!!!

All communists do!

[Severian]

That's all pretty much off-topic, since this is a thread on persecution of religious groups...by other religious people.

Or maybe not. It is pretty much the cultlike disciples of the Great Guru Redstar who are biggest on persecuting believers...and some of the most repressively anti-religious regimes have promoted their own quasi-religious cults of the Great Leader. E.g. the Chinese Cultural Revolution's Red Guards tearing down temples and smashing idols...while waving the Red Boook of the Great Helmsman's infallible Thought.

*****

Continuing from my first post:

There are of course numerous recent examples in the world today of people being singled out for persecution on the basis of their religion; from Muslims in Bosnia to Christians in Sudan.

In other cases, religion intersects with and helps define nationality. Croats and Serbs, who speak the same language, are partly distinguished in that Serbs are mostly Orthodox and Croats mostly Catholic. In Sri Lanka's civil war, the Tamils are mostly Hindu and the Sinhala mostly Buddhist; Buddhist monks have helped whip up anti-Tamil pogroms.

The best known case is Ireland: the descendants of British settlers are mostly Protestant, while the native, Gaelic Irish are mostly Catholic. The real division is nationalist vs Loyalist....but people are in practice often assumed to be one or the other on the basis of their religion. Certainly religion is used to single out the Catholic and nationalist population for systematic discrimination and oppression.

In all these cases, the only conceivable communist position is to oppose the division and oppression.

Whatever the basis on which working people are divided - "race, color, creed, or national origin" or something else entirely - it harms us all. And the modern working class can only emancipate itself by smashing every form of oppression.

[barret]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:03 PM

Are you advocating for the abolishment of religion?

YESSSS!!!!!!

All communists do!
I don't want to sound stupid, but I thought Marx based his ideas on the Declaration of the Rights of Man, even though I know that in Germany at that time they begun reject most of those ideas as considered them 'Utopian dreams". Irreguardless, the Declaration of the Rights of Man was all for the idea of religious tolerance, did Marx exclude that point?

[LSD]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Religion is bad, and religious people have made a bad choice; so what do we have to do with the persecution of a religious group? Wrong.[/b]

I agree with you entirely.

Religion today is about a lot more than mere beliefs. It's about culture and family and society. The fact is, most of the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland are functionaly atheist. Sure, they might attend church every sunday, but most don't. And when you look at how they really live their lives, it has very little to do with the "holy" words of "God".

Still, though, "Catholics" were hated by "Protestants" even when neither group really lived up to those labels!

The same was true in Yugoslavia. The bigotry against Muslims was not about Muslim "beliefs", it was about Muslim society. It was percieved as an "alien" culture, the proverbial "other" that "undermines" societal "purity".

It is, in many ways, similar to the beliefs circa the birth of modern "racial" antisemitism in the late nineteenth century. The Nazis did not hate Jews because of Christian theology, they, after all, rejected much of that theology themselves. No, the single biggest example of "religious discrimination" in history (the holocaust) was based on "racial" grounds.

Like the Nazis and their forebearers, most anti-"religious" prejeduce today is not actually based on religion. It is, rather, about "religious" excuse-making for politically or ideologically convienient discrimination.

The kind of bigotry you're talking about is not so much about belief as it is about the construction of a racist paradigm where no race exists. And this form of inherently racist religious discrimination must be fought by any progressive leftist and is the firm enemy of social liberation.

That said, though, this does not mean that we should refrain from attacking religion. There is a difference between attacking Muslims and attacking Islam.

As much as religious apologists like to make them synonymous, the fact remains that religion and the religious are two distinct beings. Religion is belief; religious people, as I've already outlined, are about a whole lot more. As communists, we have to walk a very thin tightrope. We must attack reactionary biggotry against religious people, but at the same time not let ourselves be deluded into defending religion.

It's a difficult balance act and sometimes we fall a little far on one side or the other. When that happens, we recognize our mistake, dust ourselves off, and move on.

But we have no choice but to get back on to that tightrope. Religion is wrong and is destroying lives. To ignore that fact would be to abandon the millions of religious victims around the world.

Women in much of the middle east are violently oppressed. Every day, millions of them live lives of utter horror and desperation. Before the Taliban fell, Afghanistan had the highest rate of female suicide in the world.

Not admitting this fact and not calling out the perpetrators of atrocities would be a betrayal of everything that communism stands for. And defending the victims of anti-religious persecution is meaningless if we don't also defend the victims of religious persecution.

It's a complex world and there are very few "easy answers" in it.


Originally posted by [email protected]
In all these cases, the only conceivable communist position is to oppose the division and oppression.

Absolutely.

Our duty is to the international proletariat, the entire international proletariat.

The workers of the world deserve liberation no matter what reactionary ideas they happen to hold. That doesn't mean, though, that we shouldn't try and sway them from these bad ideas.

Much of the proletariat today is homophobic and sexist, but these values cannot be part of any post-revolutionary society.

As communists, we should not buy into religious "labeling" and view seperate religious groups as distinct "races" or "peoples". That would be accepting the paradigmatic lie of the romantic nationalist.

Rather, we must view religion like we view racism and sexism, as beliefs to be argued against, but not as justifications for oppression.


barret
the Declaration of the Rights of Man was all for the idea of religious tolerance, did Marx exclude that point?

Not at all.

The point that you seem to be missing is that the abolishment of religion will not be done by force.

People do have the right to believe in whatever superstitious nonsense they want to, just as they have the right to believe in any racist nonsense.

They do not, of course, have the right to act on these beliefs. They cannot force segregation because of "racial purity" or force heterosexuality because of "holy scripture". But what goes on in someones mind is their own personal business and no free society will attempt to forcibly intrude.

Still, though, we can try and present alternatives.

No one has to listen and I'm certain that many won't, but through rational argumentation and gradual change, eventually religion will die the death of all antiquated nonsense; relegated to the historical museum of alchemy and Olympianism.

But that, as a long term goal, is in no way contradictory with a respect for basic human privacy.

[rioters bloc]

i completely agree with severian. i don't know about other countries, but at least in australia islamophobia is on the rise, to the point where it's goddamn fucking scary now. i'm going to a forum on it on monday, which should be interesting. and left activists from around sydney are organising campaigns to combat it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:28 PM
Like the Nazis and their forebearers, most anti-"religious" prejeduce today is not actually based on religion. It is, rather, about "religious" excuse-making for politically or ideologically convienient discrimination.
Good point.

To some extent this is true even of, say, some 17th-century religious war. Religion disguised political and economic interests then, too. But the veil is even thinner now.


We must attack reactionary biggotry against religious people, but at the same time not let ourselves be deluded into defending religion.

I agree. No religion is positive or progressive in the world today.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)It is pretty much the cultlike disciples of the Great Guru Redstar who are biggest on persecuting believers...[/b]

Yeah, we all get together and barbecue a Christian every weekend...if the weather's decent. :lol:

Severian, as usual, cannot see beyond the horizon of bourgeois "right"...the superstitious should not be "persecuted" simply because of their superstition.

Quite ignoring that it's the deeds of the superstitious that generate the "impulse" to "persecute".

Whenever given the opportunity, they cheerfully persecute both rival superstitions and, naturally, unbelievers.

In fact, the one thing that religious leaders all agree on is intolerance for communists!

"Heaven forbid" we should return the favor. :o

Consider this item that I posted in another thread...


Washington Post
Ebb in religious violence reveals Nigerian carnage

Onitsha, Nigeria -- Mobs stopped killing and looting in this battered Nigerian city Thursday and turned to disposing of the evidence in the crudest of ways. With smoldering bonfires fueled by pieces of wood and old tires, men burned the remains of their Muslim victims on downtown streets, leaving behind charred legs, skulls and shoulders that motorists swerved to avoid.

As the city's thousands of surviving Muslims struggled to return to their northern homes or huddled as refugees at police stations, Christian residents expressed little remorse for their role in five days of religious violence sparked by anger over the publishing of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.

At Onitsha's ruined central mosque, one of two reportedly destroyed on Tuesday, Ifeanyi Eze, 34, picked up a piece of charred wood and scrawled on a low wall: "Muhammad is a man but Jesus is from above."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGD1HE0VP1.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/24/MNGD1HE0VP1.DTL)

Christians and Muslims routinely slaughter one another in Nigeria. Hindus and Muslims routinely slaughter one another in India. Buddhists and Hindus routinely slaughter one another in Sri Lanka.

In Iraq, Muslims of rival sects cheerfully slaughter one another. :lol:

And how does Severian respond?


In all these cases, the only conceivable communist position is to oppose the division and oppression.

Can't we fulfill our "impossibility quota" by just flying by flapping our arms? :lol:

Severian's position is not only not communist, it's not even rational.

You want to go tell these people to stop murdering each other "in God's name" and unite to fight their own ruling classes instead? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't you even remotely grasp the fact that they can't even imagine doing that as long as they take religion seriously?

You think you can overcome the stupidities of religious intolerance by "making nice" with all of them...promising them a happy world of "mutual respect" and "tolerance" when they would hate that!

That doesn't even make sense within your own framework of "popularity at any cost".

They won't think that "gee, communists are really nice people"...they'll instantly conclude that anyone who preaches tolerance for "the wrong religion" is no better than a damn heathen himself and deserves to be killed!

In the "west", to be sure, we no longer permit murder "in the name of the True God".

Indeed, the rise of the "mega-churches" in the U.S. may point to a significant strategic change in the perspective of the seriously religious. Denomination is no longer "crucial" -- what counts now is to unite as many of the superstitious as possible in order to persecute the secular.

This is what Severian thinks we should "tolerate". :lol:

Revolutionaries recognize (or should recognize) that anything that discredits any of the major superstitions helps us!

It is in our interests to make religion socially unacceptable!

We may not be able to actually do much in that regard at the moment. But we should certainly do whatever we can. And we should be psychologically prepared to really go after the bastards at such time as we have the public credibility to do so.

Zero tolerance for superstition! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Jimmie Higgins]

Whatever the basis on which working people are divided - "race, color, creed, or national origin" or something else entirely - it harms us all. And the modern working class can only emancipate itself by smashing every form of oppression.


I agree with what people have been saying here. This is a suprisingly devicise issue on the left right now and I fear people run the risk of falling into ruling class ideas and arguments about people form the middle east and Islam.

I know of revolutionaries who consider the banning of Islamic-identified dress in French schools to be a progressive thing. It would be progressive if religious students were coming to their own conclusions and deciding not be be religious. In reality such regulations are xenephobic in nature and attemps to portray Islamic students as "incompatable" and alien to secular society.

The equivalent would be to ban all clothing worn above the waist in schools and then use people's reactions to show how female christians are so religious because they are upset about a regulation on wearing shirts.

Ok, that last one was a bit of a reach.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:27 PM
You want to go tell these people to stop murdering each other "in God's name" and unite to fight their own ruling classes instead? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't you even remotely grasp the fact that they can't even imagine doing that as long as they take religion seriously?
History says otherwise. Millions of workers who believe in religion have united to fight the bosses, and even make revolutions.

Heck, not just history, experience says otherwise. I've walked picket lines, organized to get solidarity from other unions, etc....alongside workers of various religious beliefs, who have a lot more sense and are a lot more good in a fight than the likes of you.

There's a reason why your perspective isn't shared by anyone who does anything resembling class-based political work in the real world.

I have met people who shared it....liberal and libertarian atheists belonging to groups like the Freethought Association. People who claim the problems of the world have an ideal cause, religion, rather than a material cause, capitalism.

But heck, even some of them would be capable of recognizing that if other religious minorities can be singled out for persecution...so can they.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)I know of revolutionaries who consider the banning of Islamic-identified dress in French schools to be a progressive thing.[/b]

The ban was actually against all ostentatious display of religious symbols.

Although a very small step in driving religion out of public life, it was definitely progressive.


Severian
Millions of workers who believe in religion have united to fight the bosses, and even make revolutions.

Which all turned to shit.

Just by accident?


I've walked picket lines, organized to get solidarity from other unions, etc....alongside workers of various religious beliefs, who have a lot more sense and are a lot more good in a fight than the likes of you.

I would not dispute the contention that religious differences are not an insurmountable barrier to reformist "struggles".

What I flatly assert is that wide-spread religious belief is an insurmountable barrier to successful proletarian revolution!


There's a reason why your perspective isn't shared by anyone who does anything resembling class-based political work in the real world.

What you think of as "class-based political work" is just reformism.


People who claim the problems of the world have an ideal cause, religion, rather than a material cause, capitalism.

I have never claimed that "the problems of the world" are "caused" by religion.

I am saying that religious belief is inevitably reactionary and always acts to delay or undermine proletarian revolution.

And when the religious persecute each other, that assists the process of discrediting all religious belief in the minds of rational people...which is something that helps us.

Redstar2000's "law": the abandonment of religious consciousness is a prerequisite for the development of revolutionary class consciousness.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by barret+--> (barret)Are you advocating for the abolishment of religion?[/b]

Well I personally would like to see Religion completely eradicated. However, when the proletarian revolutions that lead to a Communist society, do occur - whenever that is - my opinion will mean little.

If I am still alive, then I will be "one vote" and "one voice" incapable of making any substantial changes.

So what we need to consider is: what will a revolutionary proletariat do?

Now I suspect a large majority of that revolutionary proletariat will be atheists and, if history is a guide, the Religious - particularly the Religious "authorities" - will be counter-revolutionaries.

In that context, I wouldn't be surprised if the revolutionaries decided to destroy a lot of Religious shit - and execute some Religious people - during the revolutionary process.

After that? ....well I did comment on the practical difficulties of keeping Religious buildings in a post here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292007843 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45320&view=findpost&p=1292007843)

Plus I suspect that given that the Religious will have been acting as counter-revolutionaries, the remaining Religious inhabitants of a Communist society will keep it secret for fear of public scorn - and perhaps punishment.

Something I would firmly advocate, is that no Religious person should be allowed to "bring up" - indoctrinate - a child. If possible, I'd like to see certain collectives dedicated to housing children who have been taken off the pious.

If someone tries to Christen a baby, the community clubs together and takes that child and relocates him/her in the collective away from their parents. In effect, Religious people will not be allowed to mentally abuse their children.

Of course, you can always advocate Severian's approach if you find mine distasteful. Indeed Severian's approach, is virtually the same as the approach of the French Revolutionaries that made it a law that no person had an "obligation" to pass on their Religion.

Personally, I think a revolutionary today, should no longer advocate the "mantra" of 1789, but that's just me.


Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)....and some of the most repressively anti-religious regimes have promoted their own quasi-religious cults of the Great Leader.[/b]

I think that this tells us more about your political outlook, than it does mine.

That you assume that I advocate some sort of "regime" post-revolution, shows that a "regime" is exactly what you think will happen - and hope will happen?

Personally, the approach I advocate is one which I would like to see the whole working class carry out, not a group holding State Power under the "banner" of Communism.

Still, I suppose those who advocate the position of 1789 on one topic, are likely to advocate other positions from 1789 on other topics.

Actually, thinking about it, you are probably to the right of some of the French Revolutionaries. :lol:


Originally posted by Severian
In all these cases, the only conceivable communist position is to oppose the division and oppression

So you wish to support both the Republican working class and the Loyalist working class? ....sort of like supporting strikers and scabs!


[email protected]
And the modern working class can only emancipate itself by smashing every form of oppression.

So by "tolerating" superstition, we are going to "smash" it? ....pull the other one.


Gravedigger
In reality such regulations are xenephobic in nature and attemps to portray Islamic students as "incompatable" and alien to secular society.

Didn't they ban "Skull-caps" as well?

[YSR]

Originally posted by Redstar+--> (Redstar)
Severian
Millions of workers who believe in religion have united to fight the bosses, and even make revolutions.

Which all turned to shit.

Just by accident?[/b]

I don't know your nationality, but I sure hope you're not American. Because if you are, you are spitting on some of our greatest revolutionaries with this statement. Mother Jones used the word "God" an awful lot and she was a true radical.

I like to think myself a pretty respectful person, so I'm going to not post any more on the issue of religion with you, sir. Because if I do so, I'm just going to fall to petty insults. Your adherence to impractical dogma just makes me shake my head.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+Feb 26 2006, 10:53 PM--> (Young Stupid Radical @ Feb 26 2006, 10:53 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]

Severian
Millions of workers who believe in religion have united to fight the bosses, and even make revolutions.

Which all turned to shit.

Just by accident?

I don't know your nationality, but I sure hope you're not American. Because if you are, you are spitting on some of our greatest revolutionaries with this statement. Mother Jones used the word "God" an awful lot and she was a true radical.

I like to think myself a pretty respectful person, so I'm going to not post any more on the issue of religion with you, sir. Because if I do so, I'm just going to fall to petty insults. Your adherence to impractical dogma just makes me shake my head. [/b]
1. What difference does it make what country I live in?

2. Mary Harris Jones ("Mother Jones") may or may not have used the word "God" a lot...so what?

3. If petty insults are the best you can do, well, you know your own limitations better than I.

4. Since I have no intentions of abandoning my "impractical dogma", I can only suggest that you get a heating pad for your neck as you will be shaking your head a lot. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

This is a thread about discrimination against religious groups...not a thread about theology.

I don't know who moved this to the "Religion" forum...but I'm moving it back.

[Enragé]

I agree with Severian as well as LSD

we should stand by muslims in face of blatant discrimination which is only an attempt to undermine the unity of the working class in a time when all across Europe neo-liberal policies are being implemented. This does not mean we should stop being critical of religion. As LSD said, there's a difference between attacking muslims and attacking islam.

Redstar, the measure in france you call progressive was nothing less than a racist as well as a fascist measure. People should be allowed to wear whatever the fuck they want. On top of that, you do not change people's ways of doing things by telling them its illegal, it doesnt work.


Redstar, i think you are disconnected from any real class struggle, you show all the signs of being a theoretician (with admittedly some good ideas) distant from any practice, for if you were not you would realise that it is sometimes necessary to work together with people towards a common goal even if they believe in some god,. If you find yourself shoulder to shoulder those people, on the barricade, against the bosses, against the neoliberal policies of the government; you can question his or her beliefs, you can argue, but at NO TIME do you ever leave the barricade simply because the guy you're standing shoulder to shoulder with believes in some god. Why? because it would harm the entire struggle, it would undermine the unity we seek to establish, the unity we NEED.

class struggle will lead to the tearing down of belief systems, class struggle IS the tearing down of systems. Do you think that a muslim will listen to his imam if he says "go back to work" or "gays are inferior" if just the day before he marched side by side with homoseksuals, engaging in class struggle, fighting his boss, going on strike?
If however you say "fuck off you stupid muslim/whatever" he/she will go running straight back into the suffocating arms of the imam, of the ummah (community), of the mosque. And then you my friend, have dealt the struggle a heavy blow.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:27 AM
This is a thread about discrimination against religious groups...not a thread about theology.

I don't know who moved this to the "Religion" forum...but I'm moving it back.
The topic was moved to the Religion subforum by admin. LSD.

That was a correct decision in my view...so back it goes.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ItalianCommie]

I do agree that religion should be abolished, but not violently. I think Socialist society should discourage religion, not force atheism.
The Russian people in 1914 used to be a mass of bigoted and uneducated peseants with a 90% illiteracy rate, but little more than 70 years of dialectical or historical materialism changed that radically: by the 1990s less than 25% of the population believed in a religion/divinity of some sort.

For all I know, the Soviet government didn't abolish religion completely, but merely dicouraged it. If the USSR still existed, I'm sure believers would have dropped even lower.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
People should be allowed to wear whatever the fuck they want.

Nazi uniforms? KKK sheets? Where do you draw the line?


On top of that, you do not change people's ways of doing things by telling them it's illegal, it doesn't work.

Still burning "witches" where you live?

We don't allow the pious to do that any more here.

It seems to have "worked out" pretty good.


Redstar, I think you are disconnected from any real class struggle, you show all the signs of being a theoretician (with admittedly some good ideas) distant from any practice, for if you were not you would realise that it is sometimes necessary to work together with people towards a common goal even if they believe in some god.

If you have a "common goal" with someone who "believes in some god", I'd suggest you take a much sharper look at the "goal".

It might still be a good "goal"...but if you've formulated it in such a way as to attract significant religious support, then you've probably formulated it badly.

Sure, there's no "atheist test" for participating in a routine strike...but routine strikes usually don't mean anything anymore. Things are very different now than they used to be in that regard.

In fact, there are lots of fundamentally reformist struggles in which the pious can wholeheartedly participate...they don't even vaguely or indirectly threaten either capitalism or the religion racket.

In this discussion, I am addressing those who have or want to develop a revolutionary perspective.

Should revolutionaries defend any religion that is "under attack" or claims to be "under attack" from the bourgeoisie?

My answer remains NO!


Class struggle will lead to the tearing down of belief systems; class struggle IS the tearing down of systems.

It depends. In periods of intense class struggle, pre-capitalist ideologies do "take a beating".

But if the struggle against those old ideas is not explicit and focused, they'll "creep back" as sure as shit stinks!

The sort of "tolerance" for "working class superstition" that Severian proposes has, of course, no negative effect on superstition at all...and may even encourage it to linger on past its "sell-by" date.


If however you say "fuck off you stupid muslim/whatever" he/she will go running straight back into the suffocating arms of the imam, of the ummah (community), of the mosque.

Context is everything. In most reformist "struggles", there's no need to say "fuck off, you stupid Muslim".

But in the long process of building a revolutionary movement, there is need to say "fuck off" to people who are necessarily opposed to revolution.

Every believer who's given the matter any thought at all realizes that communist revolution is the end of the line for the religion racket.

If they happen to find themselves within a revolutionary movement at such a moment, it is in their own interests to do all in their power to slow things down and even bring things to a complete halt!

In the struggles within a revolutionary movement -- "we need to go further" vs. "we've gone far enough" vs. "we've gone too far and need to retreat" -- the religious, if they are present, will instinctively ally themselves with the voices of retreat.

Indeed, they'll even do that in reformist "struggles". A secular reformist can seek all the pious supporters he wants...but he's well advised never to allow them any real power in his group. Their influence is always a "pull to the right."

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[LSD]

Redstar, the measure in france you call progressive was nothing less than a racist as well as a fascist measure. People should be allowed to wear whatever the fuck they want.

You know, I used to agree with that position myself. I saw the French law as an injustifiable state intrustion into basic personal freedom. After all, what right does anyone have to dictate what kind of clothing people choose to wear??

But then I thought about it some more, talked about it with some people, and, finally, my girlfriend at the time managed to sit me down and completely reverse my position on the subject.

It doesn't happen a lot, but I finally came to realize that I was completely and absolutely wrong.

What I, and unfortunately many others as well, failed to realize was that the issue of choice in this situation is not nearly a simple as it appears.

People should have the right to wear what they want, but the problem is that these girls don't have that right. They aren't covering their heads because of fashion or taste, they're doing it because they're being ideologically forced to by an oppressive religion and, often, physically forced to by oppressive reactionary parents.

This isn't a conflict between freedom and oppression, it's a conflict between religious restriction and secular restriction. Neither is "good", but the latter is certainly the lesser evil.

Obviously, the best solution would be the elimination of religion altogether, but since that's not on the immediate horizon, we need to accept temporary measures that offer, at the very least, marginal gains.

All people should have the opportunity to experience true equal secular life. And while I am not suggesting that the French public school sysem at all embodies secular equality, allowing girls even a moment of freedom from the sexist oppression of Islamic "law" is a progressive step.

I am absolutely no fan of statist interventionism, but as long as the state exists, it might as well do some useful things. Freeing girls and women from the shackles of brutal sexist oppression is such a thing.

School is more than an educational environment, it is also a social and protective one. It allows students to meet different kinds of people and it acts as a social safety net to identify and report abuse.

Well, forcing girls to cover themselves in "shame" and "religious duty" is a form of child abuse and schools would be abandoning their social responsibility if they did not try, insofar as they can, to put a stop to it. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, but they do not have the right to force their beliefs on others, and yes, that includes their children.

Society has an obligation to afford everyone freedom, even if their parents don't particularly like it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:19 PM
People should have the right to wear what they want, but the problem is that these girls don't have that right. They aren't covering their heads because of fashion or taste, they're doing it because they're being ideologically forced to by an oppressive religion and, often, physically forced to by oppressive reactionary parents.
And does the French state remove that coercion? No, it adds another layer of legal coercion.

The headscarf ban does nothing to address the economic and other subordination of women and girls, which makes that coercion possible.

This argument's a bizarre mirror-image of one used by the fundamentalists to justify their bans on cosmetics, Western clothes, etc. They point out - accurately as far as it goes - that these things are not wholly voluntary - there is economic and other coercion behind them.

But of course banning them does nothing to remove the root problem...and in fact women in Tehran do get nose jobs, etc.

Similarly, the headscarf ban does nothing to address any girl's oppressive family situation....but it does make some families pull their daughters out of school, thereby cutting off a possibility for the girls to improve their situation and social power.

It'd be an error to assume, also, that none of these girls feel that wearing the headscarf is their decision. Plenty of adult women do.

This has nothing to do with secularism, either. Secularism requires the separation of church and state. It limits the freedom of the state - not the freedom of individuals - to support religion.

But the French state continues to finance Christian schools - while banning individuals from showing their personal support to religion. The headscarf ban is an act of religious persecution - in direct contradiction to the bourgeois-democratic right proclaimed in the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen."

***

If you moved this thread to Religion, LSD, care to explain why? It's not allowed to discuss politics related to religion among leftists on this board? We're required to put it in OI and let the cappies put their oar in?

[LSD]

And does the French state remove that coercion? No, it adds another layer of legal coercion.

Absolutely.

As I already pointed out, the only way to remove all coercion from this equation is the total abolition of religion. But, again, since that isn't a particularly realistic possibility at this point, we have to be pragmatic.

I am not suggesting that the French law is a long-term solution, nor am I even suggesting that it is a "good" one. What I am saying is that, for the moment, it's better than the alternative.

That alternative, of course, is to allow parents to force their children to continue their brutally sexist "traditions" in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism; to do nothing while girls are taught to be ashamed of their bodies and to view themselves as inferior.

I accept that I can't stop this evil, but I sure as hell will not condemn that which can.

I don't particularly like the French government and I don't particularly like the idea of state intervention. Considering that I hate the entire idea of an institutional state, it's pretty hard for me to do otherwise.

But I have to accept that my ideology only goes so far and that there are real people undergoing real suffering who's pain can be better mitigated by pragmatic solutions than well-meaning rhetoric.

Obviously the sole solution to the problem of oppression in the first world is for the people of the first world to recognize their power and rise up. But that's not happening tomorrow or next week or next year. It's going to take a very long time before that kind of consciousness develops and in the mean time there are real problems to be considered.

Now, I am not advocating reformism or suggesting that oppression can be legislated away, but when action is taken that weakens the forces of exploitation, even if that action is taken by people I don't partciularly like, I will still applaud the action.

I will very happily and very vocally condemn the French government for all the things that it does wrong. But I will equally vocally point out the things that it does well.

Not for its benefit, but for ours.

We need to recognize that radical transformations of society do not happen comfortably. They take a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of hurt feelings.

A communist society will not permit young girls to be exploited merely because the exploiter happens to be genetically related to them. If that "shocks" you or challanges your conception of "religious tolerance", that's too bad. But freedom does not only extend to the over-eighteen crowd.

Children have the right to live lives free of religious coercion. If, for the moment, the only way to ensure that that happens is the counterweight of legalistic coercion, I may not particularly like it, but I will sure as hell accept it.


Similarly, the headscarf ban does nothing to address any girl's oppressive family situation

Unfortunately, no it doesn't. But then no one ever suggested that it did.

Thanks to the "bourgeois-democratic rights" that the French state ostensibly adheres to and that you, paradoxically, seem to be invoking, parents have a legal "right" to raise their children any way they please.

That isn't likely to change any time soon.

What this school law does, however, is allow girls moments of relative freedom. It doesn't solve their family problems and it doesn't undo their already ingrained indoctrinations, and you may be right; for many of these girls, it may ultimately accomplish absolutely nothing it all ...but it gives them those moments, and that's still something.


But it does make some families pull their daughters out of school

First of all, the number of parents who can seriously afford to remove their children from school is marginal and secondly these are the types of parents who would be liable to commit similar action anyways.

Again, this law is not a perfect solution. For a small minority, it may indeed cause parents to overreact and pull their kids out of public education, but, in the final analysis, its positive effects outweigh its negative.

Believe me, there are many better ways to deal with religious oppression, most of them, however, are simply not "politically correct" within the context of a "tolerant" and "multicultural" bourgeois democratic republic.


thereby cutting off a possibility for the girls to improve their situation and social power.

If public school alone prevented religious indoctrination, religion would have died a hundred and fifty years ago.

Education is a means of self-improvement, yes, but women will never improve their "social power" as long as they remain an oppressed class. The problem with "headscarfs" is not the piece of clothing, it's the message behind it. It's the concepts of "shame" and inferiority that "nescessitate" that one "cover themselves".

"Social power" can only come when one recognizes ones own potential for such power and that cannot come if one considers oneself to be inferior or "shameful".

Again, this particular French law does not solve the entire problem, but it brings attention to the issue and it is sure as hell better than doing nothing.

Look, you may be right. There well may be an element of relgious discrimination in the bill. Some of those legislators who voted for it may well have been motivated by bigoted or even racist prejeduces and only supported it because of anti-arab and Islamophobic beliefs.

Frankly, I don't care.

Many northern Americans supported abolition because of personal economic interest, that didn't make the emancipation proclamation any less justified.

This law helps free girls from sexist oppression. That's good enough for me.


It'd be an error to assume, also, that none of these girls feel that wearing the headscarf is their decision.

They may "feel" that, but we both know that "free will" is an illusion.

Remember, porn stars "choose" to be abused and meat packing workers "choose" a dangerous profession ...but would any serious communist call either of those situations "consentual"?

The reason that we have age of consent laws for sex is the same reason that we have minimum driving ages; responsibility comes with age.

Children raised in an environment of oppression and reactionary dogma will adopt those values as their own. Partially to please their parents, partially because they genuinely don't know anything else.

We really can't change that first one, but we can change the second.

Allowing girls to experience life without the restraints of religious "law" may not convince them to abandon their faith. Indeed, for a good many of them, it may accomplish nothing at all. But let's try anyway.

After all, if it manages to convince even one girl that freedom is better than oppression, it's done its job.

"Headscarfs" are not "fashion decisions", they're child abuse. They are physical and emotional subjugation. I am under no illusions that the French public school system can put an end to this centuries-old barbarity, but if it can weaken it just a little, it has my full support.


This has nothing to do with secularism, either. Secularism requires the separation of church and state. It limits the freedom of the state - not the freedom of individuals - to support religion.

Again, you cite bourgeois notions about "religious freedom" as if they carried some sort of supernaturalistic weight.

I agree that all people have a right to believe as they chose, I reject, however, that they have any right to force these beliefs on to their children. Rather, I insist that all children be given an opportunity, even if it is only for a few hours a day, to experience life sans religion.

This isn't about state mandated religion, it's about state mandated non-religion. School should be an environment in which children experience a religiously neutral life. If they don't like it, fine, when they grow up they can choose to be as superstitious as they want. But we cannot allow them to live their entire childhood knowing nothing but the perverse "traditions" of their "elders".


But the French state continues to finance Christian schools

And you think I agree with that?

You know what else the French state does? It supports capitalism.

It also finances terrorism, colonialism, and historical revisionism; and don't get me started on its racial and immigration policies.

Luckily, of course, none of this has anything to do with this discussion! :)

My saying that one French law has beneficial effects does not mean that I must now support every action of the french state. I mean, really, even you must acknowledge that a Trotskyist accusing an Anarchist of being "pro-state" is somewhat ironic. I don't believe in state action because I don't believe in states.

But this isn't about belief, it's about practicality. And practically speaking, in this specific case, at this specific time, this law is beneficial.

It's really no deeper than that.


If you moved this thread to Religion, LSD, care to explain why?

As I explained when I set up the discrimination forum, it exists to address issues of social discrimination; sexism, racism, homophobia, etc...

This thread may touch on those subjects, but as it's developed, it's clearly turned into a discussion of what constitutes religious discrimination and what constitues relgious belief. The issue of whether or not religion is grounds for discrimination ultimately comes down to the question of what is religion?

That question is not suited for the discrimination forum.

And insofar as the cappies are concerned, so far I don't think even a single restricted member has participated in this thread so I really don't see the cause for worry.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:00 PM
As I already pointed out, the only way to remove all coercion from this equation is the total abolition of religion.
Thank you, Bruno Bauer. See first post in this thread.


That alternative, by the way, is to allow parents to force their children to continue their brutally sexist "traditions" in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism.

You just admitted the headscarf ban didn't end that. Even if nobody ever wore a headscarf anywhere, it wouldn't abolish the "brutally sexist "traditions"" which it only symbolizes.

Frankly, what's up with the clothing obsession? The dress-code issue is the least of the women's rights questions, in majority-Muslim countries or anywhere. As one Afghan feminist put it "If they'd let us work and go to school, we'd do it in chain mail if we had to."


To do nothing while girls are taught to be ashamed of their bodies and to view themselves as inferior.

Anytime somebody argues "we have to do something" chances are they're advocating you do something stupid, something even worse than doing nothing.. You might as well argue - many people did argue - the alternative to invading Iraq was to do nothing while Saddam Hussein tortured, etc etc.

The error is the same in both cases. We have to do something, yes. But we is not the capitalist state!

Communists worthy of the name do not look to the capitalist state to solve our problems.

What we have to do is fight to transform society, including bringing down that capitalist state. And on the road to that, fight against sexist discrimination.

The only way to remove or reduce coercion is to fight to transform society - not primarily "abolish religion" as if that has any meaning separate from the proletarian revolution which will dig up the material roots of religion.

Every step forward for women's economic independence, equal access to education, etc., will reduce the element of coercion. The end of patriarchal family structure - not primarily religion - will end it.


But I have to accept that my ideology only goes so far and that there are real people undergoing real suffering who's pain can be better mitigated by pragmatic solutions than well-meaning rhetoric.

Again, identical to the arguments for invading Iraq.


Thanks to the "bourgeois-democratic rights" that the French state ostensibly adheres to and that you, paradoxically, seem to be invoking, parents have a legal "right" to raise their children any way they please.

What is paradoxical about invoking bourgeois-democratic rights? We need those rights to organize and fight. And communists seek to expand those rights into a higher level of democracy, not step backwards from bourgeois democracy.

If you're serious about wanting the French capitalist state to put a stop to patriarchal family relations, you have to advocate taking milllions of children away from their parents, either for adoption parents supervised to ensure political correctness, or to be raised in some kind of state institution....the level of repression involved would not exactly enhance workers' political space to organize.


What this school law does, however, is allow girls moments of relative freedom.

How? The absence of a piece of cloth = freedom?

What it does, is add another layer of suppression and coercion, without removing an iota of what's already there.



But it does make some families pull their daughters out of school
First of all, the number of parents who can seriously afford to remove their children from school is marginal

Unfortunately untrue - since the French state subsidizes religous schools, tuition is not expensive. From an article by one of the architects of the headscarf ban (http://www.opendemocracy.net/xml/xhtml/articles/1811.html):
What will happen to them if, after the period of dialogue established by the law, they do not want to remove their scarf? It is most likely that they will be offered the opportunity to attend private religious schools - probably Catholic, Protestant or Jewish (there are only three Muslim schools in France ). These schools, if they are under state contract (as 95% are), have an obligation to accept applications from pupils of other faiths.

More Muslim schools under state contract (which entails authority over the curriculum) will develop in future. The French state historically gives large subsidies to this "parallel" educational sector, enabling the tuition fees to remain very inexpensive. The Muslim community , like other faiths, has the right to establish schools where the customs and holidays of its faith are observed, and where religious instruction exists alongside the national curriculum.

His main argument is the same as yours, BTW.


and secondly these are the types of parents who would be liable to commit similar action anyways.
This type of argument is almost always a copout. No exception this time"
There were in fact no Muslim schools in France before the headscarf ban. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1015/p07s01-woeu.html?related)

There are also large numbers of Muslims enrolled in Catholic schools in France - it'd be significant to see if the numbers have increased.

What's certain is that dozens of girls were expelled for wearing headscarves. Clearly their chances of freeing themselves from coerced religion and patriarchal family authority were decreased by denying them access to education and employment.



thereby cutting off a possibility for the girls to improve their situation and social power.

If public school alone prevented religious indoctrination, religion would have died a hundred and fifty years ago.

Education is a means of self-improvement, yes, but women will never improve their "social power" as long as they remain an oppressed class.

Oh, a minute ago, you're all can't-wait-for-the-revolution, but now it's the opposite.

Nonsense! Women have increased their social power by becoming more integrated into the paid workforce and more educated. These objective trends are the cause of the modern women's movement and everything its fought for and won.

As the same objective trends affect Muslim women in both France and Iran, they will gain and use social power in the same way.


Many northern Americans supported abolition because of personal economic interest, that didn't make the emancipation proclamation any less justified.

WTF? You're comparing the progressive economic interests of the 19th-century bourgeoisie to racist motivations? (And of course it was also in the economic interest of workers and working farmers to abolish slavery!) But motivation is not the issue - the issue is that the ban is antidemocratic, anti-freedom of religion and anti-freedom of expression.



It'd be an error to assume, also, that none of these girls feel that wearing the headscarf is their decision.

They may "feel" that, but we both know that "free will" is an illusion.

Remember, porn stars "choose" to be abused and meat packing workers "choose" a dangerous profession ...but would any serious communist call either of those situations "consentual"?

No - precisely because of economic coercion. WHich is also the basis of parental authority. "My roof, my rules."

So do we advocate laws to ban anyone from working in a meatpacking plant? No.



This has nothing to do with secularism, either. Secularism requires the separation of church and state. It limits the freedom of the state - not the freedom of individuals - to support religion.

Again, you cite bourgeois notions about "religious freedom" as if they carried some sort of supernaturalistic weight.

Again, Marxists try to move forward and expand democracy beyond bourgeois limits; you are stepping back compared even to bourgeois democracy. See first post in this thread - and earlier you claimed you agreed with me!



But the French state continues to finance Christian schools
....Luckily, of course, none of this has anything to do with this discussion! :)

My saying that one French law has beneficial effects does not mean that I must now support every action of the french state.

It has everything to do with this discussion. The capitalist state claims it is acting to protect secularism - but it is anti-secularist on both counts! Telling individuals they can't practice religion - while doing so itself!

The state is not a neutral implement. When you support any violation of democratic rights by the capitalist state, you are setting yourself up to be next.


I mean, really, even you must acknowledge that a Trotskyist accusing an Anarchist of being "pro-state" is somewhat ironic.

How? What's ironic - even hypocritical - is you claiming to be "anti-state" in the abstract while supporting a repressive action by a capitalist state in the concrete.

That's pretty standard for most anarchists when it comes down to cases, though.


As I explained when I set up the discrimination forum, it exists to address issues of social discrimination; sexism, racism, homophobia, etc...

Which this is. Social discrimination against people who are singled out for oppression on the basis of their religion.

Which is the same as any other kind. You may disagree; but kindly stop using your administrative powers to enforce one side of the debate as the official position.


This thread may touch on those subjects,

It is entirely about those subjects, aside from off-topic drifts from the cult of Redstar.


but as it's developed, it's clearly turned into a discussion of what constitutes religious discrimination and what constitues relgious belief. The issue of whether or not religion is grounds for discrimination ultimately comes down to the question of what is religion?

What? No. It's a political, not a theological question. A question about the real world, not an imaginary one.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
It is entirely about those subjects, aside from off-topic drifts from the cult of Redstar.

A certain amount of "drift" is inevitable whenever a revolutionary perspective is brought to bear on a reformist topic.

Having stoutly defended the right of meatpackers to have "prayer breaks" in Kansas, you now enroll yourself in the "headscarf" brigade in French public schools.

What about the "right" to stone adulterers or burn "witches"? What monstrous tyranny the bourgeoisie have inflicted on the pious by prohibiting these "acts of religious observance". :lol:

Next thing I expect to hear from you is a call to protest the imperialist bourgeoisie from campaigning to end female genital mutilation in African Muslim countries.

Don't Muslim parents have the "freedom of religion" to inflict savage and brutal "surgery" on their little girls? :angry:

What about American Christians who think it's "immoral" to seek professional medical care for their sick children, preferring the "power of prayer" instead?

Some bourgeois courts here have actually sent pious Christians to prison for exercising their "religious freedom" in this fashion.

Horrors! :lol:

Not to mention the outrageous persecution of Warren Jeffs (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46690) and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Will the Militant organize a "Free Warren Jeffs" rally? :lol:

It wouldn't surprise me. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[LSD]

Frankly, what's up with the clothing obsession?

"Obsession"? What "obsession"?

I was merely responding to a poster who labeled the French "headscarf law" to be "fascist" and "racist". I was pointing out how, in my view, it is actually benneficial in that it allows girls an opportunity to experience a fully non-religious environment.

I never for a second suggested that it was anything more than that.

It would appear that it is you who has an "obsession" on the issue as you chose to immediately jump in and accuse me of everything short of fascism.

Allowing girls to spend even a few hours a day free of the shackles of midieval barbarism that they are literally forced to wear, is a progressive and socially beneficial move.

"Freedom of religion" is not a blanket excuse for oppression and child abuse. Even with all the respect you seem to bizzarely have for the trappings of bourgeois "rights", you must still acknowledge that there are common sense limits.

I'm certain that you would not allow ritual executions or mutilations in the name of "faith". And yet you permit young girls to be emotionaly and psychologically scarred in the name of their parents "rights" to their archaic "traditions".

I suppose I just draw my line a little closer than you draw yours, but bear no illusions, we both draw lines.


The error is the same in both cases. We have to do something, yes. But we is not the capitalist state!

Communists worthy of the name do not look to the capitalist state to solve our problems.

No we don't, but when the capitalist state does something progressive we should still acknowledge it as such.

If the UK governemnt raised the minimum wage tomorrow, would you condemn it? Obviously it would not be a solution to capitalism and obviously it would not disuade us from our fight, but we would still acknowledge that it's a beneficial move for the workers.

Similarly, if the US were to adopt socialized medicine, it would not be an end to working class suffering, but it would be a progressive step and we would recognize it as such.

This situation is the same.

It doesn't matter whether you or I like or respect the French state, all that matters is the law itself and what effect it will have on the girls of France.

Remember, we are not talking about adults here, we are talking about children. I agree that all adults have the right in their lives to dress as they please and that this right is virtually absolute. But children do not have the intellectual ability or independence to make these decisions, especially not when they conern issues of religion and "tradition".

Again, most of these decisions are not being made by the children themselves, they are being made by the parents. The choice is not between state oppression and no oppression, it's between state oppression and parental oppression.

Now, neither is desirable and obviously both must be fought. But allowing one to fight the other does not make the first one stronger.

We can fight the powe of the state while at the same time acknowledging the good that it can do.

The enemy of my enemy is not nescessarily my friend and it is not hypocritical to allow ones enemies to fight one another.


What is paradoxical about invoking bourgeois-democratic rights?

That among these "rights" are the "right" to property and to ownership of capital.

Many so-called "bourgeois rights" are indeed valid, but those that are must be demonstrated as so on their own merits. Merely pointing out that something is a long established "bourgeois-democratic right" does not in and of itself make that thing at all relevent.

In this instance, the supposed "right" to raise ones children according to ones religion is a non-right.

Parental rights are largely precapitalist relics that have no place in a modern communist paradigm.

Children deserve to be raised in an environment of truth and rationality. Obviously that is not an achievable goal within the present socioeconomic situation, but there are some ways that we can increase children's exposure to the available life-choices.

The French law is one such way. It's not a particularly appealing way as it does indeed utilize the coercive power of the state. But, once again, we are merely counteracting once coercive influence with another.

When revolution becomes a realistic option, then we will have the means to fight child indoctrination in more effective ways, but until then, while we should not engage in parliamentary processes, we should acknowledge when their results are benneficial.

At the very least, it allows us to engage in discussions such as this one so we can understand and clarify our basic positions.


If you're serious about wanting the French capitalist state to put a stop to patriarchal family relations

But I'm not!

I'm serious about revolutionary politics ending patriarchal family relations because I seriously doubt that anything else can.

You seem to be under the impression that I believe that the French parliament can legislate away oppression. Once again, I am asserting nothing of the kind. I am merely saying that I believe that this law will produce positive outcomes.


How? The absence of a piece of cloth = freedom?

Relative freedom, yes. It offers an opportunity to experience a religiously neutral environment in which they are not forced to wear a bade of inferiority and are free of religious symbolism.

Again, I do not claim that it even begins to solve the problem of religion, patriarchy, or childhood indoctrination. I merely contend that it is, ultimately, a benneficial piece of legislation, as far as legislation goes, of course.


What's certain is that dozens of girls were expelled for wearing headscarves. Clearly their chances of freeing themselves from coerced religion and patriarchal family authority were decreased by denying them access to education and employment.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Either these children of particularly stobourn parents are being forced to attend relgious schoold or their not, but they can't be simultaneously attending parochial schools and not recieving an education!

I agree that its sad that they are forced into attending Catholic or Muslim schools. But, again, these represent the minority of cases. The most benneficial solution here, obviously, would be to get rid of "religious education" alltogether and have everyone attend secular schooling.

Of course, that can't happen overnight and will require a great deal of transition time to accomodate. For now, though, I think that making secular schools more secular is a good first step.

You're right, it's a very minor step and it doesn't address even half of the problems of female oppression or religious indoctrination.

It will take a lot more than a public school law to do that.


Nonsense! Women have increased their social power by becoming more integrated into the paid workforce and more educated. These objective trends are the cause of the modern women's movement and everything its fought for and won.

Many women have increased their social power, but unfortunately many Islamic women have been unable to free themselves from their reactionary "traditional" roles.

Yes, obviously, economic forces will lead to increased female liberation across the board, but economics and politics are not as distinct as you seem to think they are.

This "head scarf" law is a part of those socioeconomic forces. It is a part of a large-scale response to the conflict between the twenty-first century French values of quasi-feminist liberation and the seventh century values of traditional Islam.

A good deal of the personal motivations of some of the legislators involved may not be nescessarily progressive, but historical materialism cares not for personal motivations. This is a social phenomenon which transcends petty electioneering.

The effects of the law are progressive, even if some people supporting it aren't.


WTF? You're comparing the progressive economic interests of the 19th-century bourgeoisie to racist motivations?

No, I'm pointing out that a lot of the time, motivations don't matter.


So do we advocate laws to ban anyone from working in a meatpacking plant? No.

No, but when laws are passed mandating increased safety standards, we don't oppose them.

Unless you're suggesting that we should not allow the "bourgeois state" to intrude on one's right to a dangerous profession?

Look, as long as we live under the power of the capitalist state, we live under the power of the capitalist state. We can fight it, we can oppose if, we can work for its downfall; but as long as it still exists, it will remain the symbol of public policy.

Accordingly, our reaction to its actions must reflect our reactions to those actions alone and not our general reaction to the institution itself.

That is, it goes without saying that as communists we oppose this state. But in order to define our positions, we must still have specific opinions on specific legislation in and of itself.

Accordingly, on the issue of whether or not children should be required to attend completely religous-free schools, our position should be defined irrespective of our opinion on the French state or any other state.

I, again, do not support the French state nor do I suppore the institutional state in any form. I am merely attempting to express my contention that allowing children the opportunity to experience secular life is benneficial for their development.

That when they finish school, they can make the choice between religion and non-religion, but that in order to make that choice, they must first be aware of the alternatives. That means experiencing the alternatives.

Once again, this isn't about encouraging state action, its about recognizing the benneficial effects that can come out of some legislation.

The fact is that as long as the bourgeois state exists, it will continue to excersize control. Of course, it does not offer any long-term solutions to the problems of oppression, but that does not mean that we should blindly condemn every action tht it undertakes.

As an instutition, the state has no right to exist, but that's irrelevent to this discussion.


and earlier you claimed you agreed with me!

Indeed!

I agree with you on those positions where I agree with you. Surely you did not interpret me as meaning that I agree with you on everything?

Religious people should not be persecuted against on the basis of their religion. But neither should people be oppressed in the name of religion. Forcing ones child to wear religious garments meant to symbolize their inferiority is abusive and oppressive.

Mandating that, when in school, this cannot occur is not religious persecution, its basic human respect.

No one is being singled out because they are a member of a religous group, they are merely prevented from wearing an article of clothing. If, as you content, that's all it is, then there's really no problem, is there?

But, as we both know, it's not just about clothes, it's about what the clothes symbolize. And that is something that should not be tolerated.

Again, adults must be free to do as they please. They do indeed have the right to oppress and degrade themselves if they choose. If they want to display themselves as inferior, that is their own right, but that same right cannot extend to children. Childdren who have not yet developed the ability to make such decisions; who have not yet lived sufficiently independent lives to be in a position to understand the choice.


What's ironic - even hypocritical - is you claiming to be "anti-state" in the abstract while supporting a repressive action by a capitalist state in the concrete.

:lol:

That was a neat trick there, slipping the word "repressive" in and hoping that no one noticed that it changed the entire tenor of the sentence.

Let me try and explain this once again. I tried with the minimum wage analogy, but I don't know if you quite understood.

The state is "bad", but the state is also here to stay for the moment and as such we have no choice but to recognize that it exists. When it passes laws, we cannot blanketly comdenm them merely because they are laws, as that gets us nowhere. Rather we must examine their social ramifications and judge whether they are ultimately progressive or not.

I think that you have made it clear that you do not find this law to be a progressive law, that's fine, we disagree. But please refrain from making this a "state power" issue because it really isn't one.


Which this is. Social discrimination against people who are singled out for oppression on the basis of their religion.

But what is religion? Is it a belief system, is it a "race", is it a culture?

Does preventing people from carrying out their "traditions" constitute "discrimination"?

As I see it, the question of religious "persecution" comes down to what religion is and what we should view it as. Whether it should be considered as nothing more than a set of opinions, and so not deserving of any special protections beyond the right of conscience, or as a collective group, akin to racial and ethnic groups.

Those kind of questions have far more to do with religion than than they do with social discrimination.

Look, Severian, I see where you're coming from and I'd say that this is a very "on the line" case. I understand the arguments for it being in both forums. But, ultimately, it can only be in one of them and as the Religion mod and an admin of this forum, I have to make a judgement call.

In my judgement, this is a more appropriate forum for this topic. I may be biased in that judgement, of course, but I can only operate to the best of my abilities.

I hope that you can understand my position and accept my decision. :)

[red team]

The reason these sort of things happen is because there's no alternative public institutions that people including children can turn to if they have conflicts with their families. Free association doesn't exist for "dependents" which explains why they are termed "dependents" in the first place. Just like workers are dependents of employers in general.

I'm sure that if there is a publicly supported social institution as an alternative to the family you'll see some children fleeing their backward parents to join it. I don't know what such a social group is called as its not in existence yet. It's not an orphanage as the children are still dependents of the orphanage staff.

[anomaly]

Why should we tolerate any form of religion?

If the French government says girls cannot wear Muslim 'head scarves', we should support this law. It is progressive. As LSD correctly pointed out, it puts 21st century feminism against 7th century Islam. Now which one should we support? Obviously the former, as it is the more progressive option.

And, perhaps I just don't 'get it', but why the hell should we, as communists, 'tolerate' any superstitious belief that calls for the murder of us!?!? Believers would gladly pick up a gun and shoot any communist if their irrational beliefs called for this. But we should simply tolerate it? No, I don't think so. Religion should be openly opposed wherever it rears its ugly head in any society on earth.

[VermontLeft]

This is insane!

How can any communist support hijabs and making little girls wear head covering cause their sexist mohammmed told them too???

we're talking about CHILDREN for fucks sake. if it were up to me your damn right id take these kids from their fuckass parents and give them to some fucking RATIONAL people who wont make them cover their heads cause some 2000 year old dead guy told them to.

i think that students should be allowed to wear what they want cause a lot of the time schools try and force politcs and whatever by banned stuff, but this is fucking different

these kids arent making statements or trying to speak out their covering themselves up cause their fucking parents are telling them that its shameful or dirty or whatever to be a real woman and show your body.

its about time that someone told these assholes off

these fucks shouldnt get a free fucking ride just cause its their religion.

LSD is goddamn fucking right. this is nothing more than CHILD ABUSE and any one who supports it is no comrade of mine! :angry:

[Enragé]

Allowing girls to spend even a few hours a day free of the shackles of midieval barbarism that they are literally forced to wear, is a progressive and socially beneficial move.

You fail to see that what is happening is NOT an attempt at liberation. All this is is swapping the unfreedom of having to wear a headscarf with being forced to not-wear the headscarf. In neither case one could argue there is NO freedom. However it is a fact that many want to wear the headscarf and that many dont. All we as a society and as a movement should be busy doing is trying to create the circumstances under which free will reigns. And if you consider free will to be an illusion, which you apparently do, stop envoking freedom in your argumentation, for that too is then an illusion.

On top of all this, the headscarf itself was a progressive thing. It was an attempt top stop the objectification of the pre-islamic era. Indeed, there are feminists today who wear the headscarf for precisely that reason.
Its reasoning is flawed, but the core principle is good, though ofcourse it is often perverted.


No we don't, but when the capitalist state does something progressive we should still acknowledge it as such.

If the UK governemnt raised the minimum wage tomorrow, would you condemn it? Obviously it would not be a solution to capitalism and obviously it would not disuade us from our fight, but we would still acknowledge that it's a beneficial move for the workers.

Similarly, if the US were to adopt socialized medicine, it would not be an end to working class suffering, but it would be a progressive step and we would recognize it as such.

completely different situations. The headscarf ban is the taking away of a right, an opressive measure, while the 2 things you said are giving/improving the rights of the working class.


Teenagers, which is the group we are talking about here since you do consider those rights to be unalienable for adults, will not when forced to do so listen to what the state says, they will rebel, they will run into the arms of the imam, and if he's an asshole she'll blow herself up a year from now. Great.

The wearing of the burqa in the netherlands has increased under teenagers since governmental pressure to not-wear it and the threat of an actual ban has increased.

This ban in france will only accomplish the further alienation of the islamic working class from the rest. This law seeks to do just that, and therefore we should oppose it at any time while continuing the fight against any form of oppression. This fight however is not won by laws, it is won by a mentality change, gained through class struggle and education, not by forcing things on people from above.


Also, i see no reason for the abolition of religion as a purely philosophical thing. Who cares if some believe in "a god". I know plenty of people who do, and they all live like atheists and never opened a bible in their life.


How can any communist support hijabs and making little girls wear head covering cause their sexist mohammmed told them too???

he was not sexist. If anything, he empowered women in his day,especially compared the the old tribal customs. In the time of muhammad there were female imams, women had equal say in all affairs.


could people please first do some research before saying stupid shit like this.



And LSD, i would like to remind you of what you said; attacking islam is something different than attacking muslims. The law you are defending does not attack islam, it does not seek debate, it does not try to change people's minds....it forces something on a group of people, something which they do not want, something which corners them. As a lot of them see it; they are being forced to participate in the capitalist commodification of women.

vc

[Enragé]

"we're talking about CHILDREN for fucks sake. if it were up to me your damn right id take these kids from their fuckass parents and give them to some fucking RATIONAL people who wont make them cover their heads cause some 2000 year old dead guy told them to."

who are you to decide what is rational and what is not. And muhammad didnt tell them to cover up, he told people (men and women alike) to dress modestly.

Now as i said, look into things before you spew your nonsense.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:27 PM
No we don't, but when the capitalist state does something progressive we should still acknowledge it as such.

If the UK governemnt raised the minimum wage tomorrow, would you condemn it? Obviously it would not be a solution to capitalism and obviously it would not disuade us from our fight, but we would still acknowledge that it's a beneficial move for the workers.
Obviously.

That's not the same as supporting the state's moves against democratic rights - or its military interventions for that matter - just because the state throws up some liberal, progressive-sounding justification for them.

To think those moves - regardless of the pretext - can have a progressive effect, you have to have political confidence in the bosses' state.


Remember, we are not talking about adults here, we are talking about children. I agree that all adults have the right in their lives to dress as they please and that this right is virtually absolute. But children do not have the intellectual ability or independence to make these decisions, especially not when they conern issues of religion and "tradition".

We're talking about teenagers for the most part, actually. They may not be free of coercion in how to dress...but they do have the "intellectual ability" to make the decision.



What is paradoxical about invoking bourgeois-democratic rights?

That among these "rights" are the "right" to property and to ownership of capital.

Many so-called "bourgeois rights" are indeed valid, but those that are must be demonstrated as so on their own merits. Merely pointing out that something is a long established "bourgeois-democratic right" does not in and of itself make that thing at all relevent.

Yeah, on this supposedly "revolutionary left" board I tend to assume some things as already established, like the communist attitude towards bourgeois-democratic rights.

But in the first post of this thread, I went into what that attitude has been historically.

Now it turns out that you don't claim to be a Marxist. In a sense, then, I don't care how low you go. A major reason for starting this thread, is that if Redstar & his disciples want to take this vile attitude, fine, I don't care....just don't claim to be Marxist.


In this instance, the supposed "right" to raise ones children according to ones religion is a non-right.

Parental rights are largely precapitalist relics that have no place in a modern communist paradigm.

WTF? So it's OK if the state takes away, say Native American children from their parents in order to ensure they're raised as Christians? Not a hypothetical question, it happened historically. There would be no violation of democratic rights if a state did the same with Muslim children today?

And what is precapitalist about parental rights? The family in its present-day form - the "nuclear family" is a capitalist, not a precapitalist institution. Before the rise of capitalism, nobody claimed parents had some unilateral right to determine how their children were raised - even in the early capitalist period, it was assumed they had a legal obligation to raise their children in the Church.


Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Either these children of particularly stobourn parents are being forced to attend relgious schoold or their not, but they can't be simultaneously attending parochial schools and not recieving an education!

Not exactly a religiously neutral education, is it? Which you've been using to justify your whole argument.

In the public schools - without the headscarf ban - it is a religiously neutral environment, where the school administration does not promote any religious symbol or doctrine. That's what secularism is.

Quality of education in public vs private schools is also an issue.


I agree that its sad that they are forced into attending Catholic or Muslim schools. But, again, these represent the minority of cases. The most benneficial solution here, obviously, would be to get rid of "religious education" alltogether and have everyone attend secular schooling.

You betcha. So instead of praising the bosses for their supposed secularism in passing the headscarf ban, why not point out their lack of secularism in funding religious schools?

Somehow none of the supposed zealots for secularism supporting the ban ever seem to bring that up on their own.


Of course, that can't happen overnight and will require a great deal of transition time to accomodate.

What are you talking about? In next years budget, the French government can and should stop funding religious schools.

This isn't some pie-in-the sky utopia. It's a basic bourgeois-democratic, separation and church of state demand. It's outrageous that it hasn't been done long ago.

Even the Bush administration - which morons and fakers call "Christian fascist" or "Christian fascist" influenced - hasn't been able to fund religious schools so far!

It would seem pretty elementary to point out the supposedly super-secular French bourgeoisie is well behind even the U.S. situation....not make excuses for them, by claiming they can't be expected to stop doing that for a long time!

Now to ban religious schools entirely might not be practical to do immediately, it probably isn't something that should be demanded of the capitalist state....but they should at least stop actively promoting them!


But, as we both know, it's not just about clothes, it's about what the clothes symbolize. And that is something that should not be tolerated.

But it is being tolerated. Just because you remove the clothes, you don't remove what they symbolize. You don't create a "religon-free space" - because you don't remove the religion inside the head, just by taking a scarf off of it.

And there already was a secular space free of state-sponsored religon. That's the most you can demand of the capitalist state - probably the most that can be done by legislation, period.



Which this is. Social discrimination against people who are singled out for oppression on the basis of their religion.

But what is religion? Is it a belief system, is it a "race", is it a culture?

Obviously it's a belief system. Does somebody say different?


As I see it, the question of religious "persecution" comes down to what religion is and what we should view it as. Whether it should be considered as nothing more than a set of opinions, and so not deserving of any special protections beyond the right of conscience,

Obviously it is. That's the only protection that's needed: the "right of conscience" the right to practice one's religion without being subjected to any kind of persecution or punishment for it.

When someone is deprived of a job, of the right to go to school, is subjected to any kind of discrimination on the basis of religion...that is a punishment for practicing their religion, a violation of the "right of conscience."


or as a collective group, akin to racial and ethnic groups.

The answer's the same either way. If your support to freedom of religion is conditional on whether a religious group is seen as "akin to racial and ethnic groups" - then you never did agree on anything I was saying at the beginning of this thread.


Those kind of questions have far more to do with religion than than they do with social discrimination.

No, they don't. You may think so, but I don't appreciate you imposing that bizarre political view as official administrative policy.

Everyone posting in this thread holds the same religious view: there is no God.

We have different political views: on the defense of bourgeois-democratic rights.

[LSD]

You fail to see that what is happening is NOT an attempt at liberation.

It doesn't matter what it's an "attempt at", what matters is that its implementation accords millions of girls the opportunity to experience living in a secular, albeit temporary, environment.


All this is is swapping the unfreedom of having to wear a headscarf with being forced to not-wear the headscarf.

Once again, as I already pointed out, the only way to remove all coercion from this equation is the total abolition of religion. But since that isn't a particularly realistic possibility at this point, we have to be pragmatic and recognize that, one way or another, freedom is not a possibility here.

Accordingly, we are left choosing between 21st century coercion and 7th century coercion. Is that really a tough decision?

The long-term solution is for the people of France to overthrow their government and their economy and set up a truly egalitarian system. Unfortunately, that is still a ways away.

As Severian rightly pointed out, however, in the mean time, socioeconomic forces will continue to act, changing and transforming societal relationships. He was specifically talking about economic factors, but it applies to politics just as much.

This specific law was not passed with historical materialism in mind, but it is nonetheless a product of objective material conditions. The influx of muslim immigrants into France and the social conflict between competing value systems has lead to measures such as this one. Many of the motives of those who approved such legislations may not be pure, but againm,


completely different situations. The headscarf ban is the taking away of a right, an opressive measure, while the 2 things you said are giving/improving the rights of the working class.

And what "right" is this taking away? The right to be indoctrinated? To be abused by ones parents? To be forced into degrading oneself in the name of tradition?

Again, I accept that a right of conscience exists for members of society and that they must have the right to express themselves. But society has always accepted that their are limitations on franchise when it comes to children.

When a person has fully matured and are able to live independent functional lives, then they are in a position to choose. Then they should have the freedom to make bad decisions. But not before.

As long as they are subject to the control and pressures of their parents, as long as they are still developing and growing in the world, it is our duty as a society to influence that growth such that they have a truly varied understanding of the options available to them.

I don't think that the state is the best mechanism for doing this, nor do I think that legislation such as this one offers us a long-term solution. I am merely proposing that the effects of this bill will be ulimately benneficial and that measures such as it should be recognized as for what they are.

This is about protecting children. Just like safety laws are about protecting workers.

Tell me, do you think that occupational safety laws intrude on fundamental freedoms? What if someones "faith" dicatates that they "must" not where protective clothing? Or they "must" carry a knife on them at all times?

Should airport security allow passangers to board planes bearing 12 inch blades because their "faith" requires it? Should school teachers be permitted to masturbate in front of their third-grade class because their "God" commands it?

Everyone draws lines as to where religious freedom extends. Don't pretend that you view it as "absolute".

In this case, children are being abused by being forced to degrade and submit themselves in the name of "faith". I am not proposing that everyone be forbidden from wearing a specific piece of clothing. I am proposing that, as with many other things, when in school, different rules apply.

That, just as they are not permitted to bring guns to class (yes, even if it were in their faith), they not be permitted to bring "headscarfs" to their class.

It's about protection.


This ban in france will only accomplish the further alienation of the islamic working class from the rest.

What is alienating the Islamic working class is not French public school law, it's Islam.

Just like fundamentalist Christians are alienated from most American workers, so are fundamentalist Muslims alienated from most working French.

There is certainly an element of racism in modern French culture and the French government is doing very little to address it. But the fact remains that the culture of Islam, for numerous historical reasons, is politically reactionary as compared with that of modern Europe.

This headscarf situation is a very small part of a very large conflict currently going on in France, and other parts of Europe, as more and more immigration and cross-cultural interactions occur.

Again, motivations are secondary to socio-economic factors. The lawmakers may be deeply ugly people, but their product will nonetheless be an ultimately productive mechanism for change.


This fight however is not won by laws

No it isn't. It's won by popular agitation and social change.

But, again, that does not mean that we should ignore progressive legislation when it occurs. We may, rightfully, not like the French government, but we can still acknowledge when it does something useful to us.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindofSoldier
Who are you to decide what is rational and what is not?

She seems far more competent to make that decision than yourself.


On top of all this, the headscarf itself was a progressive thing. It was an attempt to stop the objectification of the pre-islamic era.

And there was a time when being a serf was a "step up" from being a slave.

So fucking what?


This ban in France will only accomplish the further alienation of the Islamic working class from the rest.

Your assumption being that "head scarves" are a "working class preference" while middle-class Muslim women abandon them with relief.

That's possible...I do not know.

I have read that suicide bombers as a group tend to come from the middle class rather than the working class in the Arabian peninsula and in occupied Palestine.

Some Muslim workers in France may be "alienated"...and others might simply not give a rat's ass.

I don't think anyone really knows enough about the subject to say.

Certainly not anyone as defensive on the subject of Islam as yourself.


Also, I see no reason for the abolition of religion as a purely philosophical thing.

Of course you don't.

You like the taste of shit!

You want it to "stay on the menu".

NO!


As a lot of them see it; they are being forced to participate in the capitalist commodification of women.

Oh yeah! :lol:

Those serious Muslims spend all their time sitting around reading Marx and the plethora of commentaries available in any French book store on "commodification". :lol:

And when that grows tiresome, they can always pay a visit to the Islamic Republic of Sudan and purchase an African female slave! :angry:


And Muhammad didn't tell them to cover up, he told people (men and women alike) to dress modestly.

Who gives a shit!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[LSD]

That's not the same as supporting the state's moves against democratic rights

This is not an issue of "democratic rights".

Children are regularly prevented from making decisions that adults can make. A 13 year old is technically "mature" enough to decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette, but I would not support allowing them to do so.

Again, responsibility comes with age and while, yes, fundamental freedoms are important, they are not binary.

Societal privalege comes with the ability to rationaly excersize it and for the same reason that a 6 year old should not drive a semi, it is nescessary to limit the freedoms accorded to children with regards to dress.

It's even worse when we're talking about Islamic households, as very often these girls grow up in environments where not only are they indoctrinated as to Islamic "faith", but they are also ingrained with the notion of their own inferiority and submissive stature. They believe that they must accede to their "cultural" norms and so do so without ever really considering it.

Making them go to school without any religious adornments allows them to understand that their parents way is not the only way.


To think those moves - regardless of the pretext - can have a progressive effect, you have to have political confidence in the bosses' state.

How so?

If the "bosses state" increases minimum wage should we protest because accepting the wage increase is acknowledging the state's legitmacy?

I have no confidence in either the French state nor the legislators thereof. But I am speaking here solely about this specific measure. Just like when we praise a wage hike we speak solely of that hike and the the person hiking it.

If a school board decrees that guns are not permitted in schools, must I have "confidence" in that school board to say that I approve of the decision?

Of course not.

Rather, I am capable of looking at the specific decision and its effects on its own. That is, ultimately, the only rational way to look at contemporary politics.

Once again, it goes without saying that we oppose the institution of the state. What we're talking about, though, is this one specific law.


We're talking about teenagers for the most part, actually. They may not be free of coercion in how to dress...but they do have the "intellectual ability" to make the decision.

Not really.

As long as they remain under the control and influence of their parents and are solely exposed to the strictly controlled environment thereof, they are not intellectually equiped to make the choice.

Again, this comes down to the issue consent and capacity. A teenager might have the physical ability to dress oneself and intellectual ability to know what a headscarf is, but unless they have some exposure to a non-religious environment, they are not capable of making an informed decision.

This school law does not alleviate the problems and, again, it doesn't even being to address the real issues of familial oppression. But what it does do is, at the very least, afford these children the opportunity to experience alternatives so that when they do make the choice, they are in a position to do so freer.

It's not much, but it's something.


WTF? So it's OK if the state takes away, say Native American children from their parents in order to ensure they're raised as Christians?

Absolutely not.

And the fact that you make this comparison seems to indicate that you view Christianity and secularism to be "paralel". That's a disturbingly post-modernist attitude for you to take.

There's a critical difference between forcing Christian indoctrination and enforcing scholastic secularism.

Requiring that girls not wear the symbols of their enslavement may not be "comfortable" for the religious crowd, but it does not force them to adopt any superstition. Furthermore, it only extends for their academic career. Once they graduate, they are free to dress as they please.

Its about presenting alternatives, not forcing indocrination.

Remember, in this case, these girls are already being forced to adopt a faith. What we are doing by making school religion-free is offering them moments of freedom, even if it is only superficial freedom.

Again, it's better than nothing.


Before the rise of capitalism, nobody claimed parents had some unilateral right to determine how their children were raised

Sure they did.

The idea of the nuclear family as distinct from the extended family is a rather recent inventnion, but the concept of family and clan independence is as old as civilization.

During the ascendency of the Catholic Church, children were indeed expected to be raised Christian, but that's because everything was expected to be Christian. But insofar as a child's duty to her parent and a parents power over his child, it was pretty much accepted as nearly absolute.

Remember, child abuse was accepted practice for most of the mast couple millenia. It is only very recently that we have begun to place restrictions on what a parent can do to his own child.

It is not unreasonable to predict that this trend will continue and we will eventually reach the point where parents are no longer permitted to pyschologically abuse their children, just as they are now forbidden from physically doing so.


You betcha. So instead of praising the bosses for their supposed secularism in passing the headscarf ban, why not point out their lack of secularism in funding religious schools?

Because that wasn't what this thread was about!

Again, I was just responding to a poster who claimed that this specific law was "racist" and "fascist". If we had been discussing the government funding of religious education, I would have indeed condemned it.

You seem to be under the illusion that this issue is "paramount" for me. It really isn't. Again, I am in no way claiming that this specific French law is a solution or an answer to the problems of religion and indoctrination. I just believe that it, in and of itself, will have positive effects.

Obviously there are other French laws which will not. And if you want to start a thread on some of them, I would be delighted to discuss it. Frankly, though, I doubt that there would be much controversy on the matter. There are probably very few members of this board who would oppose eliminating funding for parochial education.

This topic, however, is clearly contentious and so accordingly, more people are debating it.

That's how discussion boards work.


What are you talking about? In next years budget, the French government can and should stop funding religious schools.

I agree!


Obviously it is. That's the only protection that's needed: the "right of conscience" the right to practice one's religion without being subjected to any kind of persecution or punishment for it.

And what if one's religion dictates that one must sacrifice a virgin every full moon? Or that one must have regular sexual intercourse with one's daugter? Or that one must genetically mutilate one's children?

Again, it's quite ridiculous to claim that these rights are "absolute" because everyone places limits on them. The only question is where to draw the line.

Clearly, you draw the line a hell of a lot further away than I draw mine. I would imagine that you would oppose allowing female genetical mutilation in the name of religion, but you would still support forcing ones daugher to wear "head coverings" at all times.

I suppose its just a matter of priorities. I put the good of the child's development ahead of the "freedom of religion" and you do the reverse.

I guess you've really taken those "bourgeois rights" to heart.


Yeah, on this supposedly "revolutionary left" board I tend to assume some things as already established, like the communist attitude towards bourgeois-democratic rights.

And that attitude should be what?

That all accepted "bourgeois-democratic" rights are valid and univeral prima facie with no analysis required?

Sorry, but that is a monumentally stupid attitude to take.

Everything must be rationally studied before a conclusion can be reached. The mere fact that something has been "accepted" as a right does not make it a right and this argumentum ad antiquitatem crap you're pulling is utter nonsense.

You accuse me of "going low", but to claim that every bourgeois "right" must be adopted by communists merely by virtue of it being a bourgeois "right" is pure intellectual laziness.

Crafting theory is hard work; it takes a lot of time and mindnumbingly boring computation. You can't just skip all the steps in the middle by pretending that everything that came before "must be right".


And, finally, about where this thread belongs, this is my last word on the subject:

When someone is deprived of a job, of the right to go to school, is subjected to any kind of discrimination on the basis of religion...that is a punishment for practicing their religion, a violation of the "right of conscience."

But, again, the issue of religious persecution is about more than that. If someone refuses to hire an atheist "Jew" is that religious persecution or racism? After all, its certainly not a matter of "belief" as the person doesn't "believe" in anything.

You see, defining exactly what religion is in the context of prejeduce is not a simple matter, and before we can talk about its existence, we need to talk about it.

And, again, in my opinion such a discussion belongs in this forum. I understand that you disagree but its my call and I've made it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 12:20 PM

As Severian rightly pointed out, however, in the mean time, socioeconomic forces will continue to act, changing and transforming societal relationships. He was specifically talking about economic factors, but it applies to politics just as much.

This specific law was not passed with historical materialism in mind, but it is nonetheless a product of objective material conditions. The influx of muslim immigrants into France and the social conflict between competing value systems has lead to measures such as this one.
No, the needs of the French capitalist state produced this law, not "competing value systems". Including the repressive policy of this state towards immigrants and those of Middle Eastern/North African descent. Its policy of demanding "assimilation" without creating the conditions that would allow it - which ultimately resulted in the recent riots in France.


And what "right" is this taking away? The right to be indoctrinated? To be abused by ones parents? To be forced into degrading oneself in the name of tradition?

Again, I accept that a right of conscience exists for members of society and that they must have the right to express themselves.

You just answered your own question: the right being taken away - very explicitly - is the right to express a religious belief. That's how the policy is worded.

You may accept that right in theory - but not in practice.


But society has always accepted that their are limitations on franchise when it comes to children.

Again, teenagers typically.

So we should accept that the bosses' state can take away teenagers' right to free expression? As long as they come up with a liberal-sounding justification for it?

One other point about parents forcing students to wear it - the parents typically ain't there in school, are they? Knowing teenagers, would they keep wearing it all day - if it was a simple and straightforward matter of coercion?

I missed this before:

Obsession"? What "obsession"?

I was merely responding to a poster who labeled the French "headscarf law" to be "fascist" and "racist".

The issue is not who started this discussion. The issue is, that you act as if the headscarf is special, deserving of special measures to eradicate it...stronger measures than are directed at the oppression it "symbolizes."

The real fight for women's rights, in Iran or in France, and in all the different communities in France, involves a lot of the same issues. For example, equal access to employment and education.

The headscarf ban does not advance that fight; it cuts across it.

From a BBC article on it: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4395934.stm)

"We are studying to be able to work later," Ms ben Naser says. "And we all we know that if you wear a veil all the doors will close."

She says her mother, who has a PhD in philosophy and wears a headscarf, does not have a job as a result.

Sonia Benyahia, a student who wears a headscarf on campus and wants to be a schoolteacher, fears her future could be equally blocked.

"I don't know if I'll be able to take off the scarf, so I think I'll remain a housewife," she says.

Ambitious Muslim women will no doubt enter the French workforce in the coming years.

But many will have to choose between their careers and wearing their religion proudly.

Clearly when the French state enforces this ban, it will only encourage employers to continue doing the same.

I haven't accused you of being near fascism...just of backing the existing order. Which is plenty bad enough.

The worst thing isn't simply that you support this policy...it's the arguments you've been making for it, and what they say about your most basic assumptions about politics.

[LSD]

No, the needs of the French capitalist state produced this law, not "competing value systems".

Those are not contradictory phenomena.


You just answered your own question: the right being taken away - very explicitly - is the right to express a religious belief.

A right which, again, we restict every day.

"Religious expression" only goes so far and, as with most rights, when it comes to children there are even more stringent limits.

If a parent chose to send his daughter to school naked because it was his "religious faith", would you accept that as his "right"? How about if the daughter "consented"?

Children and teenagers are far to oinfluenced and controlled by their upbringing and direct parental presence to be able to make these kinds of decisions rationaly and independently.

Once they are adults, we must accept that, even if they are still being coerced, we cannot intrude in their free expression. But as long as they are still children and so the collective responsibility of society, we must do our best to protect them from the dangerous acts of their parents.

Are there more effective ways to do this than the "headscarf" law? Of course. And I would certainly like to see more done.

But that doesn't mean that this law isn't still a progressive step.


So we should accept that the bosses' state can take away teenagers' right to free expression? As long as they come up with a liberal-sounding justification for it?

It depends on whether the justification is valid or not ...obviously.

Again, we don't accept that a minimum wage increase is good because the government tells us it is. We accept that its good because we can rationaly analyze its objective benefits to the workers.

Similarly, I am not saying that this French law is good because the French government says it is, but because of the objective effects it will have on the developing minds of young French girls.

Basically, I'm saying dismiss whatever justification the government happens to be using. It doesn't matter what "liberal-sounding" sound-bite they emply. All that matters the legislation itself and what social ramifications it will have.

Everything else is politics.


One other point about parents forcing students to wear it - the parents typically ain't there in school, are they? Knowing teenagers, would they keep wearing it all day - if it was a simple and straightforward matter of coercion?

Oh please. :rolleyes:

Tell me you're not that naive...

Coercion is far more complex than physicality and you know it. Again, the problem is not that these girls are being physically threatened to wear the headscarfs, if they were then there would be no problem as the moment they moved out, they'd take them off.

No, the problem is that they are being indoctrinated to believe that their subjugation is good and "holy" and so even when they are not in sight of their parents they continue to feel the shame that has been drilled into them since birth.

What this measure does is not "seperate" them from their parents, but, again, allow the them the opportunity to experience what life is like in a non-religious environment in which they and everyone else live as relative equals.

It's coercion, yes, but, again, there is simply no way to remove coercion from this situation.

Not without removing religion first.


The issue is not who started this discussion. The issue is, that you act as if the headscarf is special, deserving of special measures to eradicate it...stronger measures than are directed at the oppression it "symbolizes."

And when did I say that?

As I recall, I repeatedly and emphatically pointed out that this law is a "very small part" of addressing the general issue of female and especially Islamic female disenfranchisement. I never suggested that this is the "key" or "solution" to the entire problem.

And insofar as it being "special", I would instead say that it is distinct as it addressed the issue of children, something which employment and economic measures are unlikely to do.

This is not about freedom of expression, it's not even really about religion. It's about protecting children from their parents.

I understand that you accept the bourgeois notion of near-absolute parental "rights" (although I have no idea why), but society has been moving away from that for a very long time know.

Parents who raise their children to see themselves as inferior are committing psychological terrorism and brutally scaring their children.

This one french law does not go far enough in addressing this problem, and, again, you're right in that its a tiny measure against an enormous problem. But I've already acknowledged that.

All that I have been trying to convey is that this law will have progressive effects and that it is not "racist" and "fascist" as the initial poster claimed.

It has been you who has been attempting to make some "higher point" here, frankly, I have no idea why.


Clearly when the French state enforces this ban, it will only encourage employers to continue doing the same.

Why, because it's a "slippery slope"? Anything applied to children "must" eventually apply to adults as well?

Sorry, but that's a complete nonargument.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:00 PM

To think those moves - regardless of the pretext - can have a progressive effect, you have to have political confidence in the bosses' state.
If the "bosses state" increases minimum wage should we protest because accepting the wage increase is acknowledging the state's legitmacy?

To think repressive moves. In context, that was obviously what I was saying.

So, if the bosses ban the expression of a view - no matter what it is - we should not support that. Feel free to make analogies along those lines...but the minimum wage law is not analagous.



WTF? So it's OK if the state takes away, say Native American children from their parents in order to ensure they're raised as Christians?

Absolutely not.

And the fact that you make this comparison seems to indicate that you view Christianity and secularism to be "paralel".

The fact you think so seems to indicate that you view the French state as secular. See above, political confidence in the bosses' state.

And of course, even if they take children away from Muslim families in order to be raised as "secular" - that is still a pro-Christian act of religious discrimination since its singles out Muslims as opposed to Christians.


During the ascendency of the Catholic Church, children were indeed expected to be raised Christian,

And during the Protestant reformation, which was a phase in the rise of the bourgeoisie. Also: in clan-based family structures, obviously parental authority was not absolute.



What are you talking about? In next years budget, the French government can and should stop funding religious schools.

I agree!

And yet you didn't say so on your own. Instead you evaded by saying the problem of religious schools could not be resolved for the indefinite future.


And what if ones religion dictates that one must sacrifice a virgin every full moon? Or that one must have regular intercourse with one's daugter? Or that one must genetically mutilate one's children?

Obviously those are not "freedom of expression" issues. Nor is it discrimination to ban those acts, since the ban applies equally to people of all religions.


I put the good of the child's development ahead of the "freedom of religion" and you do the reverse.

Oh, think about the children! Another argument which usually covers something incredibly stupid. Rather like "we have to do something!"

The Clinton administration's decision to attack the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, for example, was based on both those arguments.

You haven't shown that the headscarf ban does result in any "good of the child's development" or any good at all - repeating it 500 million times doesn't make it so.


But, again, the issue of religious persecution is about more than that. If someone refuses to hire an atheist "Jew" is that religious persecution or racism?

Who cares?

From your standpoint, apparently we need to have a whole theological discussion, worry about our attitude towards religion, etc., ask whether "jews" are a "race", etc., before taking a stand against that act of discrimination. Maybe try to read the bigot's mind, figure out if he/she is anti-Semitic on "racial" or religious grounds.

From mine - which is rooted in the real world, not the world of religion, and which opposes racist, religious, and other discrimination equally - I can take a stand against that act of discrimination without getting bogged down in all that crap.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:32 PM
Similarly, I am not saying that this French law is good because the French government says it is, but because of the objective effects it will have on the developing minds of young French girls.
You haven't shown that it has any such positive effect.


Basically, I'm saying dismiss whatever justification the government happens to be using.

And yet you use the same justification they do. Coincidence? I doubt it.


Coercion is far more complex than physicality and you know it. Again, the problem is not that these girls are being physically threatened to wear the headscarfs, if they were then there would be no problem as the moment they moved out, they'd take them off.

I do know it, which was why I made the point! But I wonder if you do. Apparently not, 'cause you go on to say:


No, the problem is that they are being indoctrinated to believe that their subjugation is good and "holy" and so even when they are not in sight of their parents they continue to feel the shame that has been drilled into them since birth.

What this measure does is not "seperate" them from their parents, but, again, allow the them the opportunity to experience what life is like in a non-religious environment in which they and everyone else live as relative equals.

One more time: How does it give anyone that opportunity. As you just said, the problem is in their heads - how does taking the headscarf off remove that?


It's coercion, yes, but, again, there is simply no way to remove coercion from this situation.

Not without removing religion first.

Again, thank you Bruno Bauer.

No, it is not the only way. Nor would removing religion, by itself, remove coercion from the world or from family life.

Transforming the material conditions of family life will remove parental coercion...and, as a side effect, remove the roots of religion.

You can't do either by pretending religion is the cause of coercion.



The issue is not who started this discussion. The issue is, that you act as if the headscarf is special, deserving of special measures to eradicate it...stronger measures than are directed at the oppression it "symbolizes."

And when did I say that?

Read my lips, "act as if."


And insofar as it being "special", I would instead say that it is distinct as it addressed the issue of children, something which employment and economic measures are unlikely to do.

The lives of parents affect the family situation of children.


This is not about freedom of expression, it's not even really about religion. It's about protecting children from their parents.

But you've admitted it does nothing along those lines. So in fact it is precisely about freedom of expression.


I understand that you accept the bourgeois notion of near-absolute parental "rights"

Wait, now you admit it is a bourgeois and not a precapitalist notion?

No, I don't accept it...and parental rights hasn't been an issue here at all. Except that to actually do what you claim the headscarf law will do...it would be necessary take children away from their parents on a large scale.

That would be undesirable for a lot of reasons, not involving "near absolute parental "rights"". As I pointed out a ways back, it would require a massive repressive machine to enforce.


All that I have been trying to convey is that this law will have progressive effects and that it is not "racist" and "fascist" as the initial poster claimed.

It has been you who has been attempting to make some "higher point" here, frankly, I have no idea why.

Positions on particular questions are derived from broader, more fundamental political outlooks. Your concrete position here shows what your more general outlook really is.



Clearly when the French state enforces this ban, it will only encourage employers to continue doing the same.

Why, because it's a "slippery slope"? Anything applied to children "must" eventually apply to adults as well?

Because anything the government does, tends to greenlight employers to do the same. E.g. Reagan breaking PATCO, sending the signal for a decade of private unionbusting.

As the BBC article shows, it's already being applied to adults, no "eventually" about it. The headscarf ban tends to make it unlikely the French state will do anything against employers who also have a headscarf ban....

[Enragé]

It doesn't matter what it's an "attempt at", what matters is that its implementation accords millions of girls the opportunity to experience living in a secular, albeit temporary, environment.

But its not doing that! Many girls stay out of school because of this, many feel forced to accept a thing they do not want to accept. If they want a secular environment they can turn on the tv and see puff daddy or some other fuck throwing money at women degrading themselves.

Forced secularism will only lead to the opposite; religious communities will fence themselves off from the rest of society.


Accordingly, we are left choosing between 21st century coercion and 7th century coercion. Is that really a tough decision?

Yes, for the 21st century one will only lead to the increase of the 7th century one. Forcing a minority to do something will only lead to that minority isolating itself from the rest of that society which is forcing them.

christian women used to wear something comparable to a headscarf...it died (99% that is) out not because of laws, it died out because of a shift in mentality.


The long-term solution is for the people of France to overthrow their government and their economy and set up a truly egalitarian system. Unfortunately, that is still a ways away.

Indeed. But dont you think that we then should only support things that make such a truly egalitarian system come closer, instead of only damaging any the possibility of such a thing, which is what this law is doing.


As Severian rightly pointed out, however, in the mean time, socioeconomic forces will continue to act, changing and transforming societal relationships. He was specifically talking about economic factors, but it applies to politics just as much.

This specific law was not passed with historical materialism in mind, but it is nonetheless a product of objective material conditions. The influx of muslim immigrants into France and the social conflict between competing value systems has lead to measures such as this one.

I agree with severian's response


And what "right" is this taking away? The right to be indoctrinated? To be abused by ones parents? To be forced into degrading oneself in the name of tradition?

Again, I accept that a right of conscience exists for members of society and that they must have the right to express themselves. But society has always accepted that their are limitations on franchise when it comes to children.

When a person has fully matured and are able to live independent functional lives, then they are in a position to choose. Then they should have the freedom to make bad decisions. But not before.

As long as they are subject to the control and pressures of their parents, as long as they are still developing and growing in the world, it is our duty as a society to influence that growth such that they have a truly varied understanding of the options available to them.

What if it was hitlers 3rd reich we were talking about, would you then also claim that control by the state is better than control by parents? Because it is not. Both are fucked, and neither should be supported, in any case

And as severian pointed out, we are talking about teenagers, not children.
On top of this; there is no age where you are completely beyond parental influence.

Also, who are you, or me, to decide for someone what decision is bad and what is not?


Tell me, do you think that occupational safety laws intrude on fundamental freedoms? What if someones "faith" dicatates that they "must" not where protective clothing? Or they "must" carry a knife on them at all times?

The first; if someone wants to get killed, fine, its his/her life, not mine.
the latter; no, this would jeopardise the safety of others, a headscarf does not.

I think you see now where i draw the line.


In this case, children are being abused by being forced to degrade and submit themselves in the name of "faith".

Degradation is all around us, and this law does not change a thing. Degradation and submission are in the mind; there are women who wear a headscarf who do not submit to any man, who do not allow themselves to be degraded; and there are plenty women without a headscarf who do submit, who do allow themselves to be degraded.


I am proposing that, as with many other things, when in school, different rules apply.

Those rules (generally) have good grounds, this rule does not.


That, just as they are not permitted to bring guns to class (yes, even if it were in their faith), they not be permitted to bring "headscarfs" to their class.

It's about protection.

equating a gun to a piece of cloth?!?!?
The morals of my society make me wear clothes.....lyke omg omgwtf look at the harm they are causing me?!?!?
Girls at my school arent allowed to wear skirts above the knee....now arent they oppressed, its like they got a gun to their heads :huh: (its a bullshit rule i agree but you know what i mean)


Just like fundamentalist Christians are alienated from most American workers, so are fundamentalist Muslims alienated from most working French.

Muslims who wear headscarves are not necessarily fundamentalist, most of them arent, many headscarf wearing women have jobs, they go to college (unless they are banned for wearing one)...this even btw in Iran (as you know an orthodo nation), they participate in society, its not like they are chained to the goddamn kitchen like fundamentalist's wives.


There is certainly an element of racism in modern French culture and the French government is doing very little to address it. But the fact remains that the culture of Islam, for numerous historical reasons, is politically reactionary as compared with that of modern Europe.

The only difference i see is that we are subject to our lord and master, the dollar/the euro, and they are subject to their lord and master, Allah.

Both are full of shit, but i think you know what i mean here.


This headscarf situation is a very small part of a very large conflict currently going on in France, and other parts of Europe, as more and more immigration and cross-cultural interactions occur.

I live here, i know.
Yes, a conflict in which the elite is trying to split the working class by enacting islamophobe racist laws, cartoons and newspaper articles, this all coupled with the rise of racist and islamophobe parties, while neoliberal policies and the tearing down of the welfare state continues because the working class is fighting amongst itself.


We may, rightfully, not like the French government, but we can still acknowledge when it does something useful to us.

Sure but this is not useful, its dividing us.

[LSD]

Many girls stay out of school because of this

And that's unfortunate.

Personally, I would be in favour of eliminating "religious schooling" alltogether so that it could no longer happen. But, as I pointed out to Severian, that's not a realistic option for the forseeable future.


many feel forced to accept a thing they do not want to accept.


Absolutely. But it's still better for them.

Most fourteen year olds I know don't like the idea that they're not allowed to drink, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a drinking age.


Also, who are you, or me, to decide for someone what decision is bad and what is not?

Rational intelligent members of society.

Who else would you have do it?

Are you honestly saying that you would allow fifteen year old girls to "consent" to having their clitorises removed? That if you could stop it, you wouldn't because you don't have the "right"?

Society is not merely individuals, it is a collective of individuals and we all bear a social responsibility.

If we see abuse, we have a duty to all that we can to stop it, even if the victim is not aware that she is being victimized.


The first; if someone wants to get killed, fine, its his/her life, not mine.


So I take it you oppose seat-belt laws, then?

Besides, you didn't answer the question. When the government passes safety laws requiring that employees wear protective clothes, do you condemn it? Do you critisize the state for its "intrution" into "freedom of expression"?


the latter; no, this would jeopardise the safety of others, a headscarf does not.

It would only jeopardize the safety of others if they used it. What if they merely intend to hang it around their belt?

You do realize that this is not a hypothetical scenario. This has actually been a problem in some schools where students were suspended for bringing "cermonial" knives to class.

Does that infringe on their "rights"? Does banning all knives constitue a violation of "religious freedom"?

If not, then is it only when others are in danger that his freedom can be abridged? Why?

Why doesn't the person themselves count. If protecting the physical safety of students is a valid justification for "repressing" "religious expression", why isn't protecting the psychological safety of students valid as well?


Degradation and submission are in the mind;

Yes they are, but the mind is not seperate from the body. Ones material surroundings define ones conception of the world and oneself.

Accordingly, when a girl lives her entire life forced to cover herself in "shame" over her own body, she developes a belief that she is indeed inferior. If, on the other hand, however, she spends part of her day living free of this restraint, she may being to understand that it is "just" a piece of clothing and that she can be free of it without being embarrassed or ashamed.

Again, it is not a perfect solution and it is not a complete answer, but it is a good first step in offering girls moments of physical, if not emotional, freedom.

Unfortunately, there is simply no way to offer them complete freedom within the confines of this society. It will require major social change within the Islamic community before that can happen and as we all know, major social change takes time.


equating a gun to a piece of cloth?!?!?

For the purposes of this analogy, yes. Although, it really doesn't matter what the banned object is.

The point is merely that, for the sake of their development, we often and rightfuly restrict the freedoms of children.

[LSD]

To think repressive moves. In context, that was obviously what I was saying.

"Repressive" is a relative term.

Esepcially within the context of the "bourgeois-democratic rights" that you so admire, "repression" is often in the best interest of society.

It is, arguable, "repressive" to mandate that workers in particularly dangerous fields wear safety clothing. It is equally "repressive" to require that schoolteachers not masturbate in front of their students.

If ones religion required that one , would you oppose the state outlawing it?

The point here, again, is that coercion is present either way and that while, yes, we should never "trust" the state or consider it a viable ally, we should still acknowledge when it acts benneficially and not blindly condemn every single thing it does.


So, if the bosses ban the expression of a view - no matter what it is - we should not support that.

But, again, the "bosses" ban "expression" all the time. Esepcially when it comes to children.

We do not permit children to drive cars, even if they wish to "express" themselves with them. Do you oppose this?

How about sex? Should a nine year old be able to express herself through performing oral sex on her teacher? Does her "consent" excuse him of any wrong-doing?

What if a fifteen-year old "wants" to have her clitoris removed because she's been raised to believe that it is "dirty"? Is the man who performs the surgery innocent because he was merely carrying out her "wish for expression"?

When it comes to children, "rights" are very complex animals. We need to, again, understand that their abilities to rational analyze are often confused and clouded by underdeveloped brains and parental influence.


And yet you didn't say so on your own.

Because it wasn't what we were talking about.

As I've now repeated several times, I do not believe that this law is a complete solution. Nor do I claim that it "excuses" the bad things the French government has done.

But when we are discussing one specific issue, I prefer to limit the discussion to that one specific issue.

If you would like to start a thread on French funding for parochial schools, please feel free. But, again, I doubt that it would be that contentious a discussion.


Instead you evaded by saying the problem of religious schools could not be resolved for the indefinite future.

What did I "evade"?

The problem of religious schools can't be resolved for the immediate future. The French government could stop funding them, yes, but that wouldn't make them go away. They'd just start collecting donations, grants, and run privately.

Indeed, the only way to eliminate religious education is probably to eliminate religion.


Obviously those are not "freedom of expression" issues.

How so?

If the child "consents" to being genitally mutilated, isn't she "expressing" her "religious faith"?

Why is it different when its a piece of clothing from when its a piece of skin?

It is absolutely hypocritical to contend that a fourteen-year old girl has the "right" to degrade herself with religious clothing, but not the "right" to have surgery.

Either "religious freedom" is absolute or it is not, you cannot have it both ways.


Nor is it discrimination to ban those acts, since the ban applies equally to people of all religions.

As does the law in question.

The fact that this one religion tends to still enforce religiously mandated clothing while many others have long abandoned it does not make this law intrinsically biased.

The fact is that it is the children of this one particular religion that are being the most victimized and so it is not inappropriate that an attempt at a remedy would be more geared towards their problems.


You haven't shown that the headscarf ban does result in any "good of the child's development" or any good at all

The "good" that it does is create a relgious-free environment so that children are exposed to secular alternatives.

There are no statistics available to indicate whether it is effective or not because it has not yet been on the books for long enough and because such social science data is notoriously difficult to compute.


And yet you use the same justification they do. Coincidence? I doubt it.

That is, of course, your right. But since I am not, actually, aware of what the French governmental justification for the law was, I'm afraid it must indeed be a coincidence.


One more time: How does it give anyone that opportunity. As you just said, the problem is in their heads - how does taking the headscarf off remove that?

Because it shows them that it can be done. It shows them that it is possible to experience an environment in which they are not required to abide by their "traditions" and that nothing cataclysmic happens when they do.

When you live your entire life knowing nothing but one rule and every moment of every day you are taught that that rule is absolute, entering a world in which that rule is not only not followed, but directly challanged, opens the door to possibility.

It may not work for everyone, indeed it may nor work for most, but for enough, it will change their understanding of their role. It will present an alternative to that "one true way" that, otherwise, they nothing but.


Transforming the material conditions of family life will remove parental coercion...and, as a side effect, remove the roots of religion.

To a certain degree yes, but, again, that is not on the immediate horizon.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I do not view this French law as long-term or complete solution. I view it as a useful measure right now. When a better option is available and a radical transformation of family life is viable, then this law will be obsolete.

Remember, I am not saying that we should accept this law and do nothing; that it's an answer to our problems. Not at all. We must continue to agitate for change and behave exactly as we would if the law does not exist.


The lives of parents affect the family situation of children.

True enough, but so do the lives of the children themselves.

There is no reason we cannot attempt to attack the problem from both ends.


Wait, now you admit it is a bourgeois and not a precapitalist notion?

It's actualy both.

Parental rights predate capitalism by millenia. When the bourgeois ascended, however, they gladly adopted it, as they did several other precapitalist notions, and adapted it for their purposes.

The desire for legacy and stewardship did not die with feudalism, rather it was merely intermingled with ideas of ownership and inheritance.


No, I don't accept it...and parental rights hasn't been an issue here at all.


Of course it has.

A major point of contention has been whether or not parental influence is a "right" or a form of coercion. Whether or not parents are merely excersizing their franchise over their children, or abusing them.


Except that to actually do what you claim the headscarf law will do...it would be necessary take children away from their parents on a large scale.


Not at all.

Again, I did not claim that the headscarf law will create monumental change, certainly not to the degree you're asserting I did. I have no trust in the French government to manage a large-scale relocation of children, nor do I have enough faith in it to allow it to intrude on family life.

I despise the oppressive nature of Islamic upbringing, but giving the state the power to interfere is to dangerous to permit.

Which is why I never proposed such a thing.

The fact is, though, children are going to state-run schools. They are already spending a good part of their day, five days a week, in an instutition externally controlled. Why not take advantage of this fact to try and further the spread of secularism?

Again, I am not contending that this law will lead to great social change, merely that it is a very small part of solving a very big problem. Frankly, I think its about as far as a bourgeois republic can go.

In the end, the only way to really eradicate this problem will be a radical social transformation. Until then, however, I will still applaud when the state acts in ways that are progressive and, to my mind, not overreaching relative to its standard activity.

You may not particularly like the minimum wage analogy, but it stands nonetheless. In that case, the state is "repressing" the freedom of the "free market" in order to socially benefit employees (well, actually to get votes but that's another discussion...).

Likewise, when the state passes safety laws requiring that, say, restaurant employees wash their hands, it is repressing their right to be dirty.

...but I bet you still like your food clean. :lol:


Because anything the government does, tends to greenlight employers to do the same.

Employers will oppress employees, that's how capitalism works. They hardly need the government to "greenlight" exploitation.

Insofar as companies discriminating against muslims, that was almost certainly happening well before the school law was passed. It's probably only garnering press now because it can be connected with the publicity regarding the school law.

Again, though, that is a seperate conversation. If you wish to start a discussion regarding employers discriminating against people based on headscarfs, I would be delighted to engage in it.

Reasonably, actually, it could even go on in this thread! :)

If you are willing to drop the school head-scarf law debate, we could go into that discussion right now as I think that it was actually that sort of thing that you initially intended this thread to address.


The headscarf ban tends to make it unlikely the French state will do anything against employers who also have a headscarf ban....

If so, that's wrong and I oppose it.

But that does not make the original law itself any less benneficial.

Banning underage drinking could, theoretically, lead to calls for prohibition, but that does not mean that we should permit children to drink. The "slippery slope" argument is, ironically enough, a "slippery slope" itself.

We need to be pragmatic and rational when we consider the "fallout" from legislative action.

If your problem with this school law is that it could lead to oppression against adults then you should focus your attentions on that front. On this issue, again, I agree with you entirely.

But, somehow, I don't think that this is really your prime concern and I sincerely doubt that if the French government were to start forcing employers to not restrict on the basis of headscarfs, you would change your position on the school law.

[Enragé]

And that's unfortunate.

its disastrous





Absolutely. But it's still better for them.

Most fourteen year olds I know don't like the idea that they're not allowed to drink, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a drinking age.

Nice, i actually do think there should be no drinking age, they'll drink anyway regardless of any law. And they'll drink because their friends drink, they'll feel pressured, and no matter what law, that wont change untill there's a mentality change..you are not "cool" if you drink. Same goes for the headscarf thing, it needs a mentality change, not a law.
Good analogy ;)


Rational intelligent members of society.

Who else would you have do it?

Are you honestly saying that you would allow fifteen year old girls to "consent" to having their clitorises removed? That if you could stop it, you wouldn't because you don't have the "right"?

Society is not merely individuals, it is a collective of individuals and we all bear a social responsibility.

If we see abuse, we have a duty to all that we can to stop it, even if the victim is not aware that she is being victimized.

With the same arguments you are combatting these injustices, muslims defend them. They too think their children should be forced to do things they do not want...because it is for their "good".

You and them are remarkably alike, for who decides who is rational and who is not? Muslims consider themselves rational as well you know.

Also, nowhere does Islam advocate female circumcision. Just as the practice of hounour revenge, this disgusting custom comes from pre-islamic times.

There is but one criteria; the absence of force, freedom, free will, and seeing this cannot flourish in the current system, we should destroy it.

In no case however should we support any law, any infringement on any right regarding to free will.


So I take it you oppose seat-belt laws, then?

Besides, you didn't answer the question. When the government passes safety laws requiring that employees wear protective clothes, do you condemn it? Do you critisize the state for its "intrution" into "freedom of expression"?

i guess so then.

Well if someone would feel it to be so.


It would only jeopardize the safety of others if they used it. What if they merely intend to hang it around their belt?

well if anyone could fully guarantee they wont be used, perhaps by superglueing the knife to the thingy in which knives and swords are put (damn i forgot the word)..then fine.


Why doesn't the person themselves count. If protecting the physical safety of students is a valid justification for "repressing" "religious expression", why isn't protecting the psychological safety of students valid as well?

because psychological safety is highly subjective. I could argue that school in itself is a threat to phycological safety, a muslim could argue not-wearing a headscarf is such a threat, someone could argue being on this site is such a threat, that it perverts your mind with sick ideas, one could argue associating yourselfs with infidels and gays threatens your psychological safety. Get where im going with this?


Accordingly, when a girl lives her entire life forced to cover herself in "shame" over her own body, she developes a belief that she is indeed inferior.

Original Islamic doctrine doesnt tell people to be ashamed, it tells them, both male and female, to be modest. There's a difference. It also does not tell women they are inferior...as a muslim once told me: male and female are two wings of the same bird...both of equal worth..but different.
Now the whole problem is the "but different"..from this you can justify millions of injustices...but it doesnt change the original idea.

This is what i mean with looking into things before you judge.


she may being to understand that it is "just" a piece of clothing and that she can be free of it without being embarrassed or ashamed.

Or she shaves her head in the name of "i'll do whatever the fuck i want"
-true story-

[Enragé]

also, im 17, and from the age of 12 at least i have been completely capable of making my own decisions, now this may be because as many often say about me i dont give a rat's ass about peer pressure, but still.

does not mean i havent made mistakes, but you learn from 'em


LSD
for an anarchist (you are one, right?) you're pretty damn moralist.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)This is what i mean with looking into things before you judge.[/b]

Perhaps you should follow your own advice....


Originally posted by [email protected]
It also does not tell women they are inferior...as a muslim once told me: male and female are two wings of the same bird...both of equal worth..but different.

From the "almighty" Qu'ran....


2:228
Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

(Emphasis added.)

Men are "a degree above" women, not of "equal worth".

Perhaps you should read the whole of this page....

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html

....before lecturing people on Islamic theology.

[LSD]

Nice, i actually do think there should be no drinking age

So you have no problem with a seven year old downing a bottle of Tequila?

How about sex? Do you think that age of consent laws are "infringements" on "rights"?

Allow me, then, to introduce you to an organization called NAMBLA. It also seeks to remove the "unjust burdens" or "moralistic government". Indeed, pedophiles make the exact same arguments that you're making. Kids will do it anyways, the state can't intrude on their freedom, age laws are arbitrary...

You know, some religions, such as Mormanism or the Romani faith, promote underage arragned marriages. That means twelve or thirteen year old girls marrying seventeen to twenty year old men.

Is this an "expression of religious freedom"? Should we allow such behaviour to occur unfettered?

Again, society is not a mere collection of individuals. Despite the libertarian propaganda to the contrary, we do have a collective responsibility and that includes protecting children from abuse, be it physical or psychological.

Coercion is a fact of contemporary society; be it economic, political, or both. And while I am not saying that we should "accept" coercion, we must recognize that it is sometimes pragmatic to allow our enemies to fight one another.

Just as we support the state when it represses economic rights, so should we support it when it suppresses coercive religion.

In neither case, do we "like" the state or state power, but in both we recognize that, in that case, it is the lesser evil.


With the same arguments you are combatting these injustices, muslims defend them. They too think their children should be forced to do things they do not want...because it is for their "good".

And they're wrong.

Look, you seem to be delving into the world of postmodern subjectivism, so let me stop you before you go any further.

Alright, from the begining; there is such a thing as an objective universe, and in that objective universe there are people doing objectively distinctive things.

Some of those things produce socially benneficial consequences, some of those things do not. We can, by studying those consequences, determine which actions are desirable and which ones are not.

The values that this parents in this hypothetical are attempting to force on to their daughters are reactionary, they will produce socially undesirable outcomes and lead to a perpetuation of Islamic sexual repression.

By contrast, the values that I am advocating imparting promote sexual equality which can be objectively shown to be a socially benneficial concept.

Understand?


who decides who is rational and who is not?

We do.

Rationality is not subjective. It's quite defined and empirically verifiable. It is not especially difficult to determine whether a line of argumentation is rationally sound as, unlike religion, reason is based on logical premises that must be adhered to.

Accordingly, in this case, my contention that girls are served by experiencing a non-religious environment is not based on "devine revelation" or "faith", it's based on a rational analysis of the facts involved.

And, as evidence by this thread's existance, I have no problem debating that analysis and presenting defending argumentation.

The same cannot be said for the truly religious. Their response do dissential is typically less "civil". :lol:


Muslims consider themselves rational as well you know.

No they don't. They consider themselves "holy".

"Faith", as the basis of all organized religion, is overtly anti-rationality. Indeed, the seriously religious make no denials about their lack of empirical support. On the contrary, they're proud of it.

Their irrationality is a "sign of their devotion". The fact that they reject logic is "proof" of their "faith in God".

This is why, incidently, religion is such a dangerous social force. It's not its belief in the paranormal that makes it inherently destructive, it's its rejection of reason.


because psychological safety is highly subjective.

Yes it is.

I never said that this issue was "simple", merely that it's important.

In terms of determining what it and what is not psychologically damaging, you're correct in that it's difficult. But difficult is not impossible.

Certainly we can say with relative certainty that being raised in an atmosphere of oppression and dogmatism is not healthy. Furthermore, we can reasonably surmise that if one is exposed to only one possibility, one will view that as normal or immutable.

Will the head-scarf law "heal" all the psychological wounds associated with Islamic indoctrination? Of course not. But it will at the very least provide a means by which girls can recognize that it exists.

As long as they only know Islamic "law", they are basically incapable of conceptualizng that its an artificial construct. Exposure to alternatives allows them to recognize that possibilites exist.

Again, it isn't a solution, but it is a start.


Or she shaves her head in the name of "i'll do whatever the fuck i want"

Great!

I don't know what the Koran's position on shaved heads is, but any act of resistance against "traditinoal roles" is a progressive move.


for an anarchist (you are one, right?) you're pretty damn moralist.

I think you're confusing moralism with conviction.

Atheism is better than religion and sexual equality is better than Islamic law.

I don't want to an head-scarfs in schools because I view them as "morally wrong" or any such nonsense, I want to do it because it will be objectively beneficial for the girls involved.

If you disagree, please continue to present your counterarguments, but let's leave the ad hominem's out of it, OK? :)

[Enragé]

Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

which is justified by the "difference" and that economically men are traditionally more important, therefore a degree above them.

Look im not saying Islam is a good religion, there is no such thing. It just isnt as vehemently anti-woman as right wing assholes and some on here are trying to make us believe.

If you look through the Qu'ran i bet you can find a thousand verses asking for forgiveness and a thousand others for brutal punishment of "transgressors". Thats how holy books are, they dont make sense, they are bullshit. They are not however inherently "evil" or whatever some want us to think.




So you have no problem with a seven year old downing a bottle of Tequila?

Ofcourse i have something against that but state coerion wont stop this now will it? Seven year olds drinking tequila is stopped through parental authority and intervention, something you consider to be fucked, by society thinking of something as being wrong, not by laws imposed from above, in short it is stopped by the mentality of parents, of society, not by laws.

If a parent would allow a kid to drink, inside the home....how would the state stop that without placing cameras inside every single home?



How about sex? Do you think that age of consent laws are "infringements" on "rights"?

Allow me, then, to introduce you to an organization called NAMBLA. It also seeks to remove the "unjust burdens" or "moralistic government". Indeed, pedophiles make the exact same arguments that you're making. Kids will do it anyways, the state can't intrude on their freedom, age laws are arbitrary...

Technically they are right. However i very much doubt that a 7 yr old would enjoy penetration by a 40 yr old.

As far as teenagers go, well, educate them, empower them to say "No" whenever the fuck they so desire (which is something in need of improvement anyway) and let them do what they want.

Age laws are arbritrary. There are 14 yr olds who want to fuck, and there are 20 yr olds who dont 'cause they're not "ready".



You know, some religions, such as Mormanism or the Romani faith, promote underage arragned marriages. That means twelve or thirteen year old girls marrying seventeen to twenty year old men.

Is this an "expression of religious freedom"? Should we allow such behaviour to occur unfettered?

No its wrong because it infringes on free will, they are arranged. Now you might say the same in regard to the headscarf, but there are plenty who wear it out of free will, and any coercion by parents should be fought; but not by laws imposed from above for they are ineffective.


Again, society is not a mere collection of individuals. Despite the libertarian propaganda to the contrary, we do have a collective responsibility and that includes protecting children from abuse, be it physical or psychological.


I agree on the first point. But the problem is psychological abuse is highly subjective, especially in the case of headscarves; some see it as abuse, for others it is the liberation of the woman from the horrors of being regarded as simply an object of male lust (the reasoning is flawed behind this, you could also just poke out men's eyes and prevent the same thing, but thats not the point, its the difference in connotation with which the headscarf can come).

You will see mostly with people who know nothing of Islam that they see the headscarf as inherently oppressive to women; however (in the reasoning of Islam) it is not.

(this debate is getting more and more philosophical)



Coercion is a fact of contemporary society; be it economic, political, or both. And while I am not saying that we should "accept" coercion, we must recognize that it is sometimes pragmatic to allow our enemies to fight one another.


Muslims are NOT our enemies!
The imams might be, the ayatullahs, but not the bulk of the muslims


In neither case, do we "like" the state or state power, but in both we recognize that, in that case, it is the lesser evil.

But the problem is, as i said before, that this measures divides us, harms our struggle.


Some of those things produce socially benneficial consequences, some of those things do not. We can, by studying those consequences, determine which actions are desirable and which ones are not.

True.
Which is why this law sucks...it creates undesirable consequences, namely it isolates a group from the rest of society even more, does nothing against the essence of oppression, and harms our struggle.


By contrast, the values that I am advocating imparting promote sexual equality which can be objectively shown to be a socially benneficial concept.

Understand?

Look i get where you are coming from; you and I are not so different. The whole issue however is that this law you are defending will get us farther from what we both want, not closer.

And I instinctively become the devil's advocate in debates.

I agree that some things are WRONG and some things are RIGHT 'cause it either prevents or causes an effect (un)desirable to us,however, this is no more an argument to someone who disagrees than someone saying to us "It is so because Allah says so".

Get it :)


The same cannot be said for the truly religious. Their response do dissential is typically less "civil".

That really depends on the person. Lefties and religious alike, there are dogmatic bigotted assholes among both (though i would not really consider a dogmatist to be a leftie but you know what i mean), and there are also nice ones in both groups (though admittedly more so among leftists).



No they don't. They consider themselves "holy".

Again, depends on the person. We have as underlying core value; all (wo)men are equal (in worth) simple because of their humanity...can you prove that? Nope. So thats our belief. They have as such a value; *blank* is the only god and *blank* is its prophet.

We reason from our value, they reason from theirs.


Great!

I don't know what the Koran's position on shaved heads is, but any act of resistance against "traditinoal roles" is a progressive move.

She did this because it was the only way to attend school without having to show her hair. (which is the reason for the scarf)


If you disagree, please continue to present your counterarguments, but let's leave the ad hominem's out of it, OK?

Hey i didnt mean it as an insult, just curious and kind of surprised how an anarchist could be so...rigid.
But yea i know what you mean.

[Vanguard1917]

Severian:

One other point about parents forcing students to wear it - the parents typically ain't there in school, are they? Knowing teenagers, would they keep wearing it all day - if it was a simple and straightforward matter of coercion?

Good point: parents cannot be blamed for those students clinging on to backward traditions. It goes a lot deeper than that. In the past, with dynamic social movements (womens' movements, labour movements, anti-imperialist movements), i think there was greater impetus for young people to abandon the traditions of their parents. There were progressive movements in society, which attracted young people into their ranks. Indeed young people were often found on the frontlines of these movements. Parents often represented the old, while youngsters possessed a particular progressive energy to break away from the old.

In the absense of such movements today, however, there is less and less progressive dynamic for these young people to be involved in. In the absense of these progressive movements, backward ideas are more likely to thrive in society.

So, although i believe that we should oppose state bans against the religious freedoms of people, I think the problems are deeper than "a simple and straightforward matter of coercion".

[LSD]

Ofcourse i have something against that but state coerion wont stop this now will it?

Sure it will.

Prohibition may not be particularly effective with adults, but statistics indicate that it generally tends to work with children, especially pre-adolsecents.

Although adults are typically clever enough to figure out how to circumvent the law, most eleven year olds are not.

Remember, in a capitalist society, people will sell anything to anyone. That means that if the drinking age were abolished Monday, you'd see deps selling beer to seven year olds Tuesday.

As scenarios go, that's not a particularly appealing one.


If a parent would allow a kid to drink, inside the home....how would the state stop that without placing cameras inside every single home?

It wouldn't, obviously, but clearly that isn't nescessary.

That there are laws against statuatory rape doesn't mean that all child abuse is prevented, but it certainly reduces the rate.

You would see pedophiles dancing in the streets if we decrminalized child-sex tomorrow. Of course after their dancing was complete, they'd run home to fuck a four-year old.

What a wonderful image. <_<


Technically they are right. However i very much doubt that a 7 yr old would enjoy penetration by a 40 yr old.

Probably not, but what if they would? More importantly, what if they "feel" that they would?

What if, as does unfortunately really happens, they were raised in an environment in which their body is not their own and being regularly pennetrated by their father is "normal"?

Does their "consent" still count in such circumstances? Would preventing them from being penetrated constitute "undue intervention"?

Society has a duty to protect its members, even when those members are unaware that they are in need of protection. Children, especially, are often unaware when they are being victimizes as they lack the functional and developmental capacity to fully ratioanly analyze their situations.

Unfortunately, in the context of a bourgeois republic, society is largely represented by its "state".

Are there better mechanisms of protection? Of course. But, for the moment, none of them are available to us.


No its wrong because it infringes on free will, they are arranged. Now you might say the same in regard to the headscarf, but there are plenty who wear it out of free will, and any coercion by parents should be fought; but not by laws imposed from above

Then by what?

Look, if revolution was a realistic possibility at this point or if there was a sufficiently powerful social organization willing to take up the charge, I&#39;d agree with you. But as it stands, all we&#39;ve got is the state.

Yeah, it&#39;s coercive, yeah, its ugly and oppressive and undesirable. But we are very short on options here.

Either the state will fight Islam or no one will. Now, clearly our obligation here is to build up a strong organized front that will have the ability to confront reaction from a staunchly progressive proletarian standpoint. But in the meantime, we might as well allow the bourgoisie to do some of our dirty work for us.

Again, allowing our enemies to fight one another is ultimately in our best interests.


for they are ineffective.

Well that&#39;s a horse of a different colour&#33; :P

Either you oppose this law because it is "morally wrong" or because it is ineffective, but those are two very different positions to take.

If you are arguing that the problem is ineffectiveness, then you are conceding that the basic idea is with merit and that it is a justified infringement of "religious freedom". If, on the other hand, you are arguing that it is "wrong", then it doesn&#39;t really matter if it is "effective" or not as its still "wrong"&#33;

So which one is it? Is it "wrong" or is it "ineffective"?

Personally, I contend that it is neither. I admit that it is far from an ideal solution, but I think that it is a good first step and that, ultimately, it will prove to more positive than negative in its long-term effects.


Muslims are NOT our enemies&#33;

No, but Islam is, and allowing the forces of Islam and the forces of the State to fight oneanother is to our bennefit.

Remember, my support for this law is in that is helps Muslims, Muslim girls to be specific. It frees them from the repressive shackles and brutal sexism of that barbaric superstition that is our enemy.


Which is why this law sucks...it creates undesirable consequences, namely it isolates a group from the rest of society even more

That "group" is already isolated from society by virtue of its clinging to antiquated seventh century "values". It isn&#39;t "Islamophobia" that is keeping Muslims out of the twenty-first century, it&#39;s Islam.

And, again, the reason why I support this law is so that it can do exactly what you acknowledge is nescessary. Help move Muslim girls out of the trappings of their "traditions" and into the modern world.

Expose them to even superficial freedom so that they, at the very least, get a taste for the real thing.

Within the confines of bourgeoi legality, it&#39;s all that we can really accomplish.


Again, depends on the person. We have as underlying core value; all (wo)men are equal (in worth) simple because of their humanity...can you prove that? Nope.

If you really believe that then you have a deep misunderstanding of communism.

Communism is a materialistic ideology, which means that it recognizes that all things can be rationaly and logically understood, including the fundamental equality of humanity.

Communism does not take equality on "faith" or assume it as a "core value", rather it derives it from a rational objective analysis of society.

The specific line of argumentation is rather long, and I don&#39;t think that we want me to go into it, but succintly put, all members of society are independent rational actors and as such independently correlated as distinct moral agents. The resultant moral framework is, accoringly, functionaly co-dependent and uniform. Any excess privilage runs contrary to this foundational aspect.

In other words, the basic nature of human society is such that there is no justification for unequal treatment.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
Look I&#39;m not saying Islam is a good religion, there is no such thing. It just isn&#39;t as vehemently anti-woman as right wing assholes and some on here are trying to make us believe.

As far as I can tell from the readily available evidence, Islam "leads the pack"...only the small "ultra-Orthodox" Jewish sects in Israel are even close.

True, there are two exceptions in that regard. Female embryos are preferentially aborted in China and India. Confucianism is a patriarchal religion (ancestor worship) and the importance of a male heir is critical. In India, the Hindu custom of female dowries makes raising female children prohibitively expensive for many peasants and urban workers.

But the unborn females in China and India don&#39;t suffer. Their genitals are not mutilated. They do not spend most of their lives being chaperoned by their male relatives or their husband&#39;s male relatives...on the rare occasions they&#39;re allowed to leave their homes at all. They are not encased in special garments designed to conceal their individuality. They are not periodically subject to barbaric penalties (flogging, beheading) for sexual "sins" without regard to the most basic rules of evidence.

And so on.

For living females, Islam "leads the planet" in total unmitigated shit&#33;


That&#39;s how holy books are, they don&#39;t make sense, they are bullshit. They are not, however, inherently "evil" or whatever some want us to think.

Bullshit is evil&#33; That especially applies when its used to provide "cosmic justification" to crap on half the human species.


But the problem is [that] psychological abuse is highly subjective, especially in the case of headscarves; some see it as abuse, for others it is the liberation of the woman from the horrors of being regarded as simply an object of male lust.

I don&#39;t imagine there are many modern women who live in fear of the "horrors" of "male lust". But those that do are quite free to dress as "unattractively" as they wish...without communicating any superstitious messages.

No one makes a "big fuss" about what people normally wear...unless a message is being sent.

As far as I can tell from photographs in the western media, urban males in Muslim countries dress, more or less, like poor urban males in the west. It&#39;s only women who are compelled to wear a special dress...a symbolic badge of their divinely-ordained inferiority to men.

It&#39;s no different than the yellow "star of David" that Jews were compelled to wear in the Third Reich.


You will see mostly with people who know nothing of Islam that they see the headscarf as inherently oppressive to women; however (in the reasoning of Islam) it is not.

Islam is not "reasoning"...it is a medieval superstition.


Muslims are NOT our enemies&#33; The imams might be, the ayatollahs, but not the bulk of the Muslims.

Leaders and followers alike are almost universally opposed to communism as a matter of principle.

That sounds like "enemy" to me.


But the problem is, as I said before, that this measure divides us, harms our struggle.

It "divides us" from our enemies.

What&#39;s bad about that?


And I instinctively become the devil&#39;s advocate in debates.

Funny kind of "instinct" you&#39;ve got there. Why not just argue the position that you actually hold instead of playing some kind of "intellectual" game?

Are you a "closet Muslim"? Are you just "fooling around"?

How are we supposed to know what you really think?


We have as [an] underlying core value; all (wo)men are equal (in worth) simply because of their humanity...

"We"?

Not me&#33; I don&#39;t think exploiters and exploited "are equal in worth" simply "because" of their "humanity".

I don&#39;t place the "same value" on the lives of the oppressors as I do on the lives of the oppressed.

In fact, going even further, I think the lives of the oppressed who embrace the values of the oppressors ain&#39;t worth a shit either.

How about that&#33; :lol:

I reject the "humanitarian" assertion that "capitalists are people too"...and all of its corollaries.

In your eyes, that no doubt makes me a "dogmatic bigoted asshole".

I&#39;d be ashamed not to be&#33; :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[red team]

Muslims are NOT our enemies&#33; The imams might be, the ayatollahs, but not the bulk of the Muslims.

Leaders and followers alike are almost universally opposed to communism as a matter of principle.

That sounds like "enemy" to me.


Not exactly, it depends on the situation. In a theocracy like Iran you don&#39;t have much options except to follow the officially sanctioned state religion, unless you want the morality police dragging you off to a dungeon for torture. Not so for religious believers in a liberal democracy. The situation is lot more fluid with believers and non-believers switching sides frequently. I should know from personal experience. They are your potential enemy, but they are not yet your enemy until society reaches a crisis situation. Of course, by then all social order breaks down and the guns come out. :o Potential enemies can switch sides and become your potential allies through propaganda work.




But the problem is, as I said before, that this measure divides us, harms our struggle.

It "divides us" from our enemies.

What&#39;s bad about that?


That may be true as "devout" muslims may retreat into their privately runned religious schools. But key word to note here is retreat as a military analogy. The religious believers will no longer be able to rely on public funds to study religious doctrines or engage in religious acts. They will have to draw from their own private funds which is an advance for the secular side.

This is also a good tactic for driving an intergenerational wedge into religious families.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:16 PM

Allowing girls to spend even a few hours a day free of the shackles of midieval barbarism that they are literally forced to wear, is a progressive and socially beneficial move.

You fail to see that what is happening is NOT an attempt at liberation. All this is is swapping the unfreedom of having to wear a headscarf with being forced to not-wear the headscarf. In neither case one could argue there is NO freedom. However it is a fact that many want to wear the headscarf and that many dont. All we as a society and as a movement should be busy doing is trying to create the circumstances under which free will reigns. And if you consider free will to be an illusion, which you apparently do, stop envoking freedom in your argumentation, for that too is then an illusion.
What has given us all the chance to live in secular societies free from theocracy was that the bourgeoisie came to power and violently suppressed the church. Look it up if you want. This talk about &#39;unfreedom&#39; and &#39;free will&#39; is ahistorical and rather abstract, divorced from class reality.

[Zero]

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:53 PM
It is, arguable, "repressive" to mandate that workers in particularly dangerous fields wear safety clothing. It is equally "repressive" to require that schoolteachers not masturbate in front of their students.
No, it&#39;s not. Not even arguably. Nobody thinks that safety equipment is a free-speech or freedom of religion issue. (A First Amendment issue, people say here in the States.) Same with surgery, another example you use later in your post.

In contrast, the headscarf ban is quite explicitly a ban on wearing religious symbols. That&#39;s what the rule says.

It is a perfectly straightforward ban on expressing religious beliefs, and it takes a lot fo verbal gymanastics to turn it into anything else. As in your posts, for example.


But since I am not, actually, aware of what the French governmental justification for the law was, I&#39;m afraid it must indeed be a coincidence.

Heh. You think ignorance protects you from bourgeois ideological influence? You couldn&#39;t be more wrong.

Bourgeois ideology is in the air you breathe. Their various political campaigns are all-pervading. Even if you don&#39;t own a TV, a radio, a computer, never read a newspaper - you&#39;ll still hear it indirectly from other people.

If you ignore it, it does not go away. You cannot avoid being influenced by bourgeois propaganda that way.

It&#39;s necessary to be conscious of bourgeois politics, to analyze it, to answer it. That&#39;s the only way to be independent of their politics.


You may not particularly like the minimum wage analogy, but it stands nonetheless. In that case, the state is "repressing" the freedom of the "free market" in order to socially benefit employees (well, actually to get votes but that&#39;s another discussion...).

Yeah, maybe an anarchist or a libertarian thinks that&#39;s violating someone&#39;s rights. From a democratic or communist standpoint, no.

But I wanted to take up what you said about the minimum wage, etc. earlier:

The state is "bad", but the state is also here to stay for the moment and as such we have no choice but to recognize that it exists. When it passes laws, we cannot blanketly comdenm them merely because they are laws, as that gets us nowhere. Rather we must examine their social ramifications and judge whether they are ultimately progressive or not.
That&#39;s not a revolutionary stand at all. Communists don&#39;t demand and fight for minimum wage laws, etc., because their "social ramifications" are "progressive" or because the effects of those laws will limit the suffering of the working class, as you suggest elsewhere.

Revolutionaries join the fight for a reform, not for the sake of the reform, but for the sake of the fight. Because the fight increases the consciousness, self-confidence, and unity of the working class and its allies.

Here&#39;s a thread on Rosa Luxemburg&#39;s "Reform or Revolution" which explains this point in more detail. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45512)

So: how about the headscarf ban in this light?

First, there was no working-class fight for it. So no benefit from that. It&#39;s not something the bosses had to concede under pressure - so it&#39;s unlikely to be progressive.

Unless you think there&#39;s something still progressive about capitalism today.

Second, supposing there is some beneficial effect from it. You haven&#39;t begun to show there is, even though that&#39;s your stated criterion. But let&#39;s suppose for the sake of argument it has some beneficial effect.

What do we accomplish by endorsing it? The Iraq invasion has some beneficial side-effects, including more political space for workers to organize. That doesn&#39;t mean it should be supported&#33;

Do we increase workers&#39; class-consciousness by saying the capitalist state can, without being pressured, come out with progressive laws? By prettying up its fraudulent claim to be "secular"? By supporting its power to restrict freedom of expression?

No, no, and no. Instead, by endorsing the law we make it harder to distinguish between the rulers and revolutionary workers who both belong to the dominant nationality. We deepen the divisions in the working class. While building illusions in the rulers and their state.

Is this a demand communists would have proposed or fought for? No - I get the impression even you wouldn&#39;t have. (Am I wrong?) A working-class campaign for greater secularism in education would focus on the funding of religious schools, first. A campaign to free children from parental violence would focus on examples of parental violence or other coercion.

The bosses came up with this entirely on their own; let them defend it. I said earlier communists don&#39;t look to them to solve our problems - even more, we don&#39;t help them solve theirs&#33;

[red team]

Severian, by your logic we then should allow the paraphenalia of all the other religions to be allowed in public schools. As this would only be "fair" to other superstitions. Alright then. Why stop at paraphenalia? Why not allow alternative creation myths to compete with scientific theories? I can&#39;t imagine the confusion that would result from having 100 different "theories" competing with each other along with what is actually the rational scientific explanation. Why not? according to Intelligent Design advocates Evolution is just a theory. Highschool biology class would look more like a miniature version of the crusades or the inquisitions than a science lecture. :lol:

Oh, and as far as I know the effort to defend the teaching of Evolution in schools is led by middle class professionals such as university professors of Biology so by that standard it&#39;s not a proletarian movement and has no positive effect on behalf of the proletariat. :lol:

Me thinks you&#39;re a bit too subjective in your conjectures. :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by OglachMcGlinchey
What has given us all the chance to live in secular societies free from theocracy was that the bourgeoisie came to power and violently suppressed the church.

Not just the bourgeois.

During the French Revolution, the sans-culottes (French poor from urban areas) went into the countryside to try and force "de-Christianization". They carried pikes and made the Peasantry denounce the Catholic Church and encouraged the Peasantry to kill the clergy.

I don&#39;t know how successful this was, but Severian would obviously oppose such an initiative with a passion. Not only that, but this opposition would find him in disagreement with all the French Revolutionaries - even the Girondins grudgingly supported the action.
____

On another note, why has this debate focused on Muslims alone? ....from my understanding the law bans "skull-caps" too.

[Enragé]

Remember, in a capitalist society, people will sell anything to anyone. That means that if the drinking age were abolished Monday, you&#39;d see deps selling beer to seven year olds Tuesday.

:huh:

my 10 yr old kid brother once drank some liquor he found somewhere cuz he thought it&#39;d be fun, he took one sip and almost threw up...now do you think he ever drank it again?


You would see pedophiles dancing in the streets if we decrminalized child-sex tomorrow. Of course after their dancing was complete, they&#39;d run home to fuck a four-year old.

:huh:
No cuz im not suggesting rape to be made legal

And since it is rationally impossible for a 4 year old to enjoy sex with a 40 year old any sexual activity between the two would be considered rape.

Also, physically they&#39;re not sexually mature, its impossible to be sexually mature at the age of 4, therefore any sexual activity with an adult is rape.



Probably not, but what if they would? More importantly, what if they "feel" that they would?

physically its impossible


Then by what?

Class struggle.
walking side by side with muslim men women and children, talking with them, relating, sharing experience, debating etc


So which one is it? Is it "wrong" or is it "ineffective"?

Both actually. It goes against free will, no matter what you think of it being an illusion, for it would mean all free will is an illusion.

At the same time its ineffective because it corners and alienates a big part of the working class from the rest of the working class.


Remember, my support for this law is in that is helps Muslims, Muslim girls to be specific. It frees them from the repressive shackles and brutal sexism of that barbaric superstition that is our enemy.

Its not doing that.
Removing a piece of cloth does not do away with sexism, and some rather shave of their hair or stop going to school alltogether (causing a generation to be completely lost) instead of being forced to show something in school which they do not want.
In their eyes it would be the same as for us a law forcing all girls to wear extremely short skirts, or forcing them to stop wearing pants all together because they are "oppressive" and "sexist".

On top of it all, you are trying to turn repression of freedom of expression into something good. doubleplusgood luck with that



That "group" is already isolated from society by virtue of its clinging to antiquated seventh century "values". It isn&#39;t "Islamophobia" that is keeping Muslims out of the twenty-first century, it&#39;s Islam.

There are plenty muslims who are in the 21st century. And a large percentage of Europe still is christian...and those are 1st century values we&#39;re talking about.


If you really believe that then you have a deep misunderstanding of communism.

Communism is a materialistic ideology, which means that it recognizes that all things can be rationaly and logically understood, including the fundamental equality of humanity.

Communism does not take equality on "faith" or assume it as a "core value", rather it derives it from a rational objective analysis of society.

The specific line of argumentation is rather long, and I don&#39;t think that we want me to go into it, but succintly put, all members of society are independent rational actors and as such independently correlated as distinct moral agents. The resultant moral framework is, accoringly, functionaly co-dependent and uniform. Any excess privilage runs contrary to this foundational aspect.

In other words, the basic nature of human society is such that there is no justification for unequal treatment.

could you give me a link to some text or whatever which explains this in full?


As far as I can tell from the readily available evidence, Islam "leads the pack"...only the small "ultra-Orthodox" Jewish sects in Israel are even close.

True, there are two exceptions in that regard. Female embryos are preferentially aborted in China and India. Confucianism is a patriarchal religion (ancestor worship) and the importance of a male heir is critical. In India, the Hindu custom of female dowries makes raising female children prohibitively expensive for many peasants and urban workers.

But the unborn females in China and India don&#39;t suffer. Their genitals are not mutilated. They do not spend most of their lives being chaperoned by their male relatives or their husband&#39;s male relatives...on the rare occasions they&#39;re allowed to leave their homes at all. They are not encased in special garments designed to conceal their individuality. They are not periodically subject to barbaric penalties (flogging, beheading) for sexual "sins" without regard to the most basic rules of evidence.

And so on.

For living females, Islam "leads the planet" in total unmitigated shit&#33;

You are taking the most extremist examples of islam and putting it as something which is true for all muslims. Generalisation is what its called.



As far as I can tell from photographs in the western media, urban males in Muslim countries dress, more or less, like poor urban males in the west. It&#39;s only women who are compelled to wear a special dress...a symbolic badge of their divinely-ordained inferiority to men.

Not inferiority.
At least not originally, it might be used as such but its not what its meant to be.

Its like the USSR...they claimed to be communist, but they werent. In unmitigated shit..."communism" ranks pretty high too.


Leaders and followers alike are almost universally opposed to communism as a matter of principle.

That sounds like "enemy" to me.

The majority of the world&#39;s proletariate is opposed to communism as a matter of principle.

Are they the enemy? Ofcourse not.


How are we supposed to know what you really think?

I always say what i really think.

Im on an islamic forum as well and i kick the shit out of Islam there.

I automatically stick up for the criticised, especially when they cant defend themselves cuz they are not here. Islam is portrayed far worse than it actually is, just as the crimes of Israel are portrayed far worse in the arab world, and get almost no coverage in the west. Just as the crimes of the americans are exagerated in the Turkish movie blockbuster "Valley of the Wolves", and just as every arab in US cinema is a terrorist.

nuance is they key.



I reject the "humanitarian" assertion that "capitalists are people too"...and all of its corollaries.

Well they are, no matter how much you try to deny it. This doesnt mean we cant take away their privileges, that we cant hang them from the highest tree should they violently oppose the revolution or refuse to relinquish their priviliges.



What has given us all the chance to live in secular societies free from theocracy was that the bourgeoisie came to power and violently suppressed the church. Look it up if you want. This talk about &#39;unfreedom&#39; and &#39;free will&#39; is ahistorical and rather abstract, divorced from class reality.

The bourgoeisie never did that. Capitalism as a system gradually replaced the deity with the dollar, thats all.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
The bourgoeisie never did that. Capitalism as a system gradually replaced the deity with the dollar, thats all.

Yes, the bourgeois did "do that", even the most brief account of the French Revolution (or any other bourgeois revolution) would inform you about the way in which the bourgeois and organised Religion went "head to head" and how the emerging bourgeois suppressed organised Religion.

There was nothing "gradual" about the shooting of Priests&#33; :lol:

[LSD]

No, it&#39;s not. Not even arguably. Nobody thinks that safety equipment is a free-speech or freedom of religion issue. (A First Amendment issue, people say here in the States.) Same with surgery, another example you use later in your post.

That&#39;s your argument? "Noboby thinks"? What kind of an argument is that&#33;?

Of course surgery can be a free speech issue, especially when it&#39;s superficial surgery. Surely, you wouldn&#39;t deny that I have the right to remove my left pinky finger if I want to. Maybe I&#39;m doing it in "solidarity" with someone, or out of "sympathy" for someone&#39;s "plight".

Now is it a "first ammendment" issue?

So how about when a fourteen year-old "wants" to have her genitals mutilated? It&#39;s not a "medical" issue in the strictest sense, as she isn&#39;t doing out of health reasons. Rather she is "expressing" her "faith".

Again, there is no fundamental difference between a piece of cloth and a piece of flesh if the only criterion is "religious freedom". You cannot contend an unalienable right to the first but not to the second.

And how about sex? Can&#39;t one "express" themselves through sex? Certainly, one can "practice ones faith" through it; how about if, say, ones "God" commands that one marry six underage prepubescent girls?

Don&#39;t think it happens? Think again.

Between the Mormans in the USA and the Romani in Europe, underage "religious" marriages are happening in your backyard every day.

Are you really telling me that if you had the power, you would not stop it? That your respect for "bourgeois-democratic rights" is so ingrained that will stand back while a thirteen year old girl is penetrated by her twenty year old "husband"?

Personal freedoms are essential, but there are always limits on them when it comes to children. They simply do not have the independent capacity required to entrust them with sole powers.

So we place limits on when they can first drink, smoke, drive, shoot, etc... It doesn&#39;t always work, but the underlying idea is sound. The biological reality is simply that we are not born with maturity and we need time to develop rational skills.

This headscarf law applies to school and school alone, when the students are at home, they can wear whatever they want to on their heads. This way, they are exposed to all alternatives. Which one they chose, is their soverign right, but until they&#39;re adults, they are still limited in their excersizing of those rights.

Children are not "little grownups", they are beautiful developing beings. Allowing such beings to know nothing but barbaric repressive "traditions" that teach them to be "ashamed" of their very existance, is a monstrosity that verges on the criminal.


Revolutionaries join the fight for a reform, not for the sake of the reform, but for the sake of the fight.

No, revolutionaries don&#39;t "join the fight for a reform" at all.

But we do define our positions relative to existant issues. That means that we can analyze events and legislation to determine their societal effect.

I never proposed that we should "endorse" this law, I merely said that we should not oppose it. This law does not harm the proletariat and it is ultimately benneficial for millions of girls.

Again, the state is going to continue to exist for the forseeable future and its going to continue passing legislation. That means thousands and thousands of laws. We cannot waste our time condemning every single one of them, rather we must focus on those which are especially harmful.

The school head-scarf law is simply not a proletarian issue. It&#39;s actually a throw-back, a relic of the 18th century ascendant bourgeois campaigns against theocracy. In much of the world, the bourgeois has settled and abandoned its secularism, it appears that some elements in France are attempting to ressurrect theirs.

I may not particularly like the people involved, but any progressive move against religion is ultimately beneficial.

Again, it&#39;s about history, not motivation.


First, there was no working-class fight for it. So no benefit from that.


There was no working class struggle for the end of segregation either, but that didn&#39;t make it any less socially progressive. The unfortunate truth is that much of the proletariat is still reactionary.

Sexism, racism, homophobia, and religion are rampant among the workers of the world, especially those from third world countries. In this regard, the modern first world bourgeoisie tends to be more advanced.

The capitalists have, for the most part, skimmed out all pre-capitalist discrimiminations to increase their profit margins and balance thei5 books. It&#39;s what capitalism does better than anything else: move a society from tribalism to cheque-books.

It&#39;s never a comfortable transition, but historically speaking, it appears to be a nescessary one. What is happening in France is a continuation of the fight between the, now dominant, bourgeois, and, suddenly reinvigored, forces of traditionalism. Remember, the bourgeoisie already won this fight, for the most part, over Christianity. The sudden influx of muslim immigrants from less developped countries, however, has taken the rulling class back in time to a point when they were the progressive class.

When the bourgeoisie fights the workers, it is our enemy. But it&#39;s not our only enemy. The world is still awash with pre-capitalist enclaves and if its reactionary relative to capitalism, it&#39;s certainly reactionary relative to us.

Remember, communism is not merely about defeating the bourgeoisie, it is about defeating it in a progressive manner. That cannot be achieved so long as powerful forces clamor for precapitalsit regressions&#33;


What do we accomplish by endorsing it?

Nothing, which is why I am not proposing that you do.

This isn&#39;t about "position" or organization stand, it&#39;s merely about an analysis of the situation.

I don&#39;t care what you write about this law or what you tell others to write about it. All that I am attempting to convey is that it is not "fascist", is not "racist", and that it will, ultimately, prove to be beneficial.

I leave your "endorsements" up to you.


And since it is rationally impossible for a 4 year old to enjoy sex with a 40 year old any sexual activity between the two would be considered rape.

"Rationaly impossible"? "would be considered"?

But what about the 4 year olds "expression"? What happened to "I don&#39;t believe in drinking age"???

You see, in the end, everyone must draw a line as to where children can exert control. Not because we are particularly oppressive, but because we recognize that developing minds are highly memetic and highly suseptible to influence.

Freedom of expression is not an isolated right, it is part of a continuum of rights that begins with rights over ones body and extends to rights over the products thereof. The reason that one has the right to wear what one wants is because on has the right to be as one wants ...but when it comes to children, that only goes so far.

We do not allow four-year olds to make medical decisions, even though it is their body, and we do not consider an eleven year old&#39;s "consent" to penetration to be valid.

We understand that until they are fully mature, children must be protected from many of the the influences around them and, yes, that often includes their parents.

Now, we could argue about where the line should be, and there are numerous arguments for numerous numbers, but, in the end, regardless of where the line is drawn, it will still exist.

And before they reach that line, minors will be subject to limitations in their lives. One such limitation, in France, is that in school they are not permitted to wear a sexist symbol of oppression.

When they grow up, if they want, they can put it back on. But maybe, just maybe, those few precious moments of secularism will appeal to them.

And again, if it frees just one girl, the law has done its job.


Also, physically they&#39;re not sexually mature, its impossible to be sexually mature at the age of 4, therefore any sexual activity with an adult is rape.

It&#39;s called "statuatory rape", actually.

The "statuatory" means that it&#39;s by virtue of statute and not by virtue of force. That is, we recognize that it doesn&#39;t matter whether the four year old "thought" she "wanted it", she was not in a position to give informed rational consent.

Sometimes children just aren&#39;t.

Again, what we are talking about here is not adults. We are rather talking about girls being raised in an environment of oppression and inferiority to the degree that they internalize notions of shame and devaluation. Unfortunately, this will continue until the barbarity of Islam is eliminated or sufficiently reformed, but that does not mean that there is nothing that can be done in the mean time.

Just as we do not permit children to be physically abused by their parents (yes, even if they "like it"), we should not allow them to be degraded by their parents.

The bourgeois state has very few useful functions, but within the context of a capitalist society, what it does do is counteract the forces of the market by, at least ostensibly, offering basic protections to everyone.

If if it didn&#39;t do this, of course, capitalism would collapse. It is the delicate interplay between the state and market that keeps this society functioning.

So, while we do not support the institution of the bourgeois republic, we still applaud when child mollestors are captured and rapists caught. Similarly, we should not oppose a progressive move against oppression, even if said oppression cloaks itself in "religious freedom".


Removing a piece of cloth does not do away with sexism

No it doesn&#39;t, but it removes the physical symbol of that sexism. It takes away the badge of inferiority and allows these girls to experience a truly secular environment.

I am not proposing that it is an answer to the problem of sexism, I&#39;m just saying that for these girls, it&#39;s a good thing.


There are plenty muslims who are in the 21st century.

Yes there are, but those aren&#39;t the ones we&#39;re talking about. It&#39;s the Muslims who raise their daughters to "cover themselves" in "shame" that are trapped in the seventh century and it is they who we are discussing here.

Capitalism is inherently atheistic and rational. It is exploitative as all hell, but its modernistic in its exploitation. The conflict between modern bourgeois values and reactionary "Islamicist" values, quite simply does not involve the revolutionary left.

This is a battle from a different century. This is Paris 1779 again, and I have no idea why we&#39;re even debating it.

Religion is always reactionary. That the ascendant bourgoisie could recognize this but the Trotskyist "old left" can&#39;t is probably a sign of in just how precarious a state the far-left is today.

But, who knows, maybe it&#39;s an encouraging sign. Maybe the final death of the vanguardist romantics can only happen ugly. If so, let&#39;s hope it happens quickly.

Lenin&#39;s corpse is starting to smell.

[Enragé]

Yes, the bourgeois did "do that", even the most brief account of the French Revolution (or any other bourgeois revolution) would inform you about the way in which the bourgeois and organised Religion went "head to head" and how the emerging bourgeois suppressed organised Religion.

There was nothing "gradual" about the shooting of Priests&#33;

:huh:
the french revolution of 1789 failed remember

so what if they shot priests, 1815 onwards that was a thing of the past.

On top of that, that was 1 country.


And again, if it frees just one girl, the law has done its job.

Even if it condemns thousands to a worse situation than they are in now, even if it doesnt even free that one girl?

You cant free somebody if he or she doesnt want to be freed
And i ask you, what is the big difference between a 17 yr old and a 19 yr old in regard to what they are able to decide and what not? even if you were to argue the 17 yr old is not capable of deciding things like this because of here upbringing, what qualifies the 19 yr old to infact be capable of such a thing?
Adult or underage, we are all victim of the society we live in.
By your reasoning nobody has free will. Why are you all of a sudden free at 19 when you are not at 17? Your upbringing continues to be of great importance even in adult life.


Again, what we are talking about here is not adults. We are rather talking about girls being raised in an environment of oppression and inferiority to the degree that they internalize notions of shame and devaluation. Unfortunately, this will continue until the barbarity of Islam is eliminated or sufficiently reformed, but that does not mean that there is nothing that can be done in the mean time.

Not everyone who wear headscarves are ashamed of themselves, just as not everyone not wearing an extremely short skirt is ashamed of herself. Or everyone not fucking every guy she meets, that doesnt mean she&#39;s ashamed of her body.

Ofcourse some are, but this is the case with both those who do wear headscarves and those who dont


No it doesn&#39;t, but it removes the physical symbol of that sexism. It takes away the badge of inferiority and allows these girls to experience a truly secular environment.

It is not necessarily a badge of inferiority, many/most dont consider it as such. They consider it to be a badge of pride, of respect, of whatever...but not necessarily inferiority.


Yes there are, but those aren&#39;t the ones we&#39;re talking about. It&#39;s the Muslims who raise their daughters to "cover themselves" in "shame" that are trapped in the seventh century and it is they who we are discussing here.

There are loads of modern, educated, i dare say feminist, muslim women who cover themselves out of free will. And who bring up their daughters giving them a choice whether or not to cover themselves, ofcourse you will come with the argument "their upbringing promotes the covering of oneself in shame"...but it is not necessarily in shame. Why is covering yourself necessarily an act of shame? Even when its extremely hot outside i wear pants/shorts (i hate shorts but yeh) when i go to school and hang out with friends, dont you?


This is a battle from a different century. This is Paris 1779 again, and I have no idea why we&#39;re even debating it.

Because unlike what many of us would like to believe...the world is not, never has been, and in the foreseeable future never will be, atheist. It is in great majority religious.

[LSD]

You cant free somebody if he or she doesnt want to be freed

Perhaps not, but they can&#39;t want it unless they know it&#39;s an option.

Again, this law only applies to children and only applies to schools. If allows them the opportunity to experience a secular environment in which they are freed of the shackles that they are not even aware they&#39;re wearing.

Will it convince everyone? Of course not. But it will certainly open quite a few eyes and get quiite a few girls thinking about just what exactly that thing their wearing is.

Again, children are not "little adults". We cannot treat them as if they were.


And i ask you, what is the big difference between a 17 yr old and a 19 yr old in regard to what they are able to decide and what not?

Not much.

Again, as I already pointed out, the placement of the line is debatable and there are numerous arguments for numerous numbers. Still though, in the end, regardless of where the line is drawn, it will still exist ...and you have not contested this.

I am not saying that 16 is the right number, but in this society its the number that we&#39;ve accepted. And so it&#39;s what we have to work with. Is it the best possible one? Probably not, although it does seem reasonable to me.

If you wish to work on changing the age of mandatory schooling, that&#39;s one thing. But while students are at school, before they reach that age (whatever it is). they should experience a totally secular environment, even it they don&#39;t "want" to.

A lot of them don&#39;t want to study math either.

Tough.


Not everyone who wear headscarves are ashamed of themselves

Then why are they wearing them? Fashion? :lol:

Headscarfs are worn because fundamentalist Islam teaches that for a woman to show her hair is "shameful". That she is the property of her husband or father and that he alone has the "rights" to her.

It&#39;s seventh century barbarism masking as "free will".

Now, if a woman choses to ignore all that and subjugate herself, that is, sadly, her right. It may make me angry and it may ruin her life, but it is her free choice to do with herself as she pleases.

But when it comes to children, who are not yet even old enough to fully understand the context and nature of the situation, then we can take an active role.

As we do in so many other areas of children&#39;s lives, in this one, we can rightfully restrict their freedom for their eventual bennefit.

A fourteen year old girl who has been raised in a traditional Islamic household, knowing nothing but patriarchy and "tradition" is not capable of "consenting" to having her genitals mutilated. If she were to "agree" to such a procedure, we would nonetheless applaud as they dragged the "surgeon" out in chains.

Well the same applies to cloth as it does to flesh.

Until she is sufficiently mature to decide for herself, it is up to society to give her the broadest range of experience possible.


It is not necessarily a badge of inferiority

Yes it is.


the world is not, never has been, and in the foreseeable future never will be, atheist.

And I never claimed otherwise, but that does not mean that we should support child abuse in the name of "religious tolerance".

[VermontLeft]

i dont like the french government but what people here are missing is that these are KIDS.

i mean im 17 now so i think that i would be covered under this law and even though i know that i can think independently, from what ive seen thats pretty unique.

most of the girls in my class are morons and not to mention that they are absolutely influenced by the politics of their parents. hell im probably influenced by the fact that my parents used to be in the US communist party and are still marxists.

because of that i get that its important that we keep school a neutral zone so that thse girls can escape from the religious crap of mohammmed.

I think that LSD said it bettere then me cause i cant write as good and whatever :P but you know what I mean. :blush: :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)the french revolution of 1789 failed remember[/b]

That is totally irrelevant to the point at hand, you commented that....

"The bourgoeisie never did that." - "that" being the suppression of organised Religion.

Now, the French Revolution is just one example of the emerging bourgeois "going to war" with feudalism - of which organised Religion was a huge part.

I can&#39;t think of one emerging bourgeois that didn&#39;t suppress organised Religion, as this was a necessary part of defeating the feudal ruling class.

As LSD pointed out: "This is a battle from a different century. This is Paris 1779 again, and I have no idea why we&#39;re even debating it."


Originally posted by [email protected]
so what if they shot priests, 1815 onwards that was a thing of the past.

Not really.

Napoleon did make concessions to the Catholic Church and so did Louis XVII (?). However, at no point was Catholicism allowed to regain it&#39;s pre-1789 status - it was suppressed from doing so.


NewKindOfSoldier
On top of that, that was 1 country.

What do you think the English bourgeois did throughout the 19th century? ....they suppressed organised Religion.

Admittedly, they did this in a less "radical" way than the French bourgeois, but they still did it.

[Enragé]

Perhaps not, but you they can&#39;t want it unless they know its an option.

................................... :unsure: a good point.

However...i think that the law will accomplish more wrong than right. Students will drop out, go to islamic schools, and we will have accomplished nothing but further separation between the various groups within our society.


Still though, in the end, regardless of where the line is drawn, it will still exist ...and you have not contested this.

Yes, i agree with you on this point now. You changed my mind ;)


Then why are they wearing them? Fashion?

Headscarfs are worn because fundamentalist Islam teaches that for a woman to show her hair is "shameful". That she is the property of her husband or father and that he alone has the "rights" to her.

It&#39;s seventh century barbarism masking as "free will".

Now, if a woman choses to ignore all that and subjugate herself, that is, sadly, her right. It may make me angry and it may ruin her life, but it is her free choice to do with herself as she pleases.

But when it comes to children, who are not yet even old enough to fully understand the context and nature of the situation, then we can take an active role.

True, its because of "shame". But shame exists everywhere now doesnt it. I might like walking around naked outside but i dont because of "shame". Many teenage girls wont wear certain clothes (or more precisely; lack thereof) because they are "ashamed", now are you going to force them to wear nothing but extremely short skirts and bann all underwear? Beacause its a symbol of subjugation? It very well may be. Point is they dont see it as such, and therefore it is not, same goes for headscarves.


Yes it is.

No its not.

:huh:

see

this reasoning is really effective isnt it ;)


And I never claimed otherwise, but that does not mean that we should support child abuse in the name of "religious tolerance".

Sure, but the whole point is...is it child abuse? The whole point is that wearing headscarves isnt necessarily something that has to do with subjugation, inferiority. Men have to go to the mosque, women are exempt...is that a symbol of male subjugation to women? dont think so..

You could also argue that letting children watch mtv is child abuse, or "forcing" them to wear clothing is, even when its so hot outside it isnt necessary.


I can&#39;t think of one emerging bourgeois that didn&#39;t suppress organised Religion, as this was a necessary part of defeating the feudal ruling class.

But they didnt ban religious symbolism and shit now did they?


What do you think the English bourgeois did throughout the 19th century? ....they suppressed organised Religion.

So what?

The dutch bourgeoisie put into the constitution the inalienable right for parents to choose its childrens&#39; education, be it religious or otherwise.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)But they didnt ban religious symbolism and shit now did they?[/b]

I&#39;m not sure on this one. In France, at some point during the "Second Revolution" I think some kind of law was passed about wearing certain Religious clothing, but don&#39;t quote me on that.

What we do know they did, was take over Religious institutions and buildings - remember the Temple of Reason? - and they certainly tried their hardest to drive Religion out of Public life.

If you consider banning Religious symbols in schools "wrong", I&#39;d hate to hear what you would say to the sans-culottes army who routinely stuck a pike in members of the Catholic Clergy and some of the more pious believers.

The suppression of Religion was far more brutal back then that a few pieces of legislation banning "religious symbolism".


Originally posted by [email protected]
So what?

So, you were obviously talking out of your arse when you said....

"The bourgoeisie never did that." - "that" being suppressing Religion.


NewKindOfSoldier
The dutch bourgeoisie put into the constitution the inalienable right for parents to choose its childrens&#39; education, be it religious or otherwise.

And you wish to protect that right? ....promoting parental despotism now?

[LSD]

However...i think that the law will accomplish more wrong than right. Students will drop out, go to islamic schools, and we will have accomplished nothing but further separation between the various groups within our society.

This argument has already been made and it really doesn&#39;t stand.

Again, the vast majority of students cannot afford, fiscally or practically, to drop out of school; and that minority which can are typically those who would engage in such activity regardless.

Look, I am not proposing that this is a complete solution. Obviously, as Severian pointed out, there is a growing problem of parochial schools. I agree with him in that the government should cease funding them immediately, in fact I would go further and suggest that all schooling be public and secular.

That is, after all, the logical next step.

The thing about all of this, though, is that it is not a revolutionary leftist issue. As I already pointed out, this is an anachronistic fight. The battle between the bourgeoisie and the religious order is centuries-old. In most of the industrialized world, both sides have managed to settle their differences and reach an acceptable, if not amiable, cohabitation.

But for some reason in France, probably due to recent immigration rates, the fight is flaring up again.

Our concern, though, is for the revolutionary proletariat, not the reactionary religious. Those parents who make their daughters cover themselves in public are, implicitly, not revolutionarily conscious.

Are they incapable of becoming so? Of course not. But as long as they cling to their reactionary values, they will be unable to fully function in even this society, let alone help in building the next one.

Now, we do not have the right to forcibly change their minds on this or any other issue, but we certainly have an obligation to protect their children. To, at the very least, expose them to a secular alternative to the centuries-old cycle of barbarism and oppression.

That&#39;s what this head-scarf law does. It offers children moments of secularism so that they know what the world has to offer beyond the musty confines of a "Holy Mosque".


Point is they dont see it as such

No, the point is that they do.

Look, if it were merely a piece of clothing, we wouldn&#39;t be having this discussion. Of course it has a deeper meaning and that deeper meaning is an implictly sexist one.

Muslims may not put it in those terms, but if pressed, they&#39;d acknowledge that, yes, the Islamic faith considers women to be "lower" than men and the Hijab is a means of expressing this. Women are supposed to be "ashamed" of themeselves, while men are free to dress pretty much as they please.

Girls must constantly display their inferiority, while men can dress and act like everyone else without having to wear their "faith" around their necks.

It&#39;s the proverbial "yellow star" of the Thid Reich and it&#39;s wrong. And while we cannot stop women from voluntarily subjecting themselves to it, we sure as hell can save their children from this hellish barbarity.


The whole point is that wearing headscarves isnt necessarily something that has to do with subjugation

Absolutely.

When one wears a head scarf to match an outfit or to cover up baldness, it&#39;s about fashion. But when one does it because "god demands it", then it&#39;s about subjugation.

Indeed, as I understand it, the word "Isam" itself means to subjugate before "God" -- although, clearly men don&#39;t have to "subjugate" quite as much.

One simply cannot divorce the sexist oppression of Islam from the adornments thereof. It&#39;s like claiming that the "yellow star" "didn&#39;t really mean anything".

Again, this is not a matter of personal freedom or freedom of expression, it&#39;s a matter of children and their basic protection. When a girl who&#39;s lived her entire life knowing nothing but Islam and her Islamic "role" takes off that scarf it isn&#39;t just about clothing, it&#39;s about a paradigm shift; about a realization that, potentialy, she can be an equal to anyone else.

It&#39;s an opportunity to experience a truly secular, albeit academic, environment. And while it is certainly no utopia, it&#39;s certainly better than the alternative.

We have a great deal of work to do if we hope to defeat both capitalism and sexism. Why not save a little time and allow them to fight each other for a change?


Men have to go to the mosque, women are exempt...is that a symbol of male subjugation to women?

No, actually it&#39;s just another symbol of female subjugation.

Men are permitted to "speak with God" while women are "not deserving" of this "honour".

Now, from our rational perspective, all this speaking with invisible creatures might strike us as absurd, but from within the paradigm of Islam, it&#39;s a big deal&#33; Talking with "Allah" is really fucking important, pleasing "Him" is the "purpose of life", after all; and the fact that men enter into "holy dialogue" and women cannot is a rather overt slap the face of all Muslim women.

Women, apparently, are too "dirty" or "stupid" for "Allah" to address them directly. Rather, they must take their "orders" through their husbands.

Hmmm, nice little hierarchy that sets up, isn&#39;t it? And don&#39;t you think for a moment that that fact is lost on anyone, least of all the women involved.

Honestly, do you really believe that Islamic girls growing up don&#39;t notice that it&#39;s the men and the boys who go to the Mosque and then the men and the boys who make all the rules? Don&#39;t you think they see that it&#39;s always the people with penises who have the freedoms and the people with vaginas who have to "cover themselves" and "stay home"?

Subjugation isn&#39;t just about how you set up the rules, it&#39;s also about how you set up society. And in this case, Islamic society is specifically organized to keep women suppressed. That kind of social momentum simply cannot be fought with "kind words" and leaflets.

It took the emergent bourgeoisie to break the back of Roman Catholicism, it may take the descendent bourgeoise to break the back of Islam.

Either way, a class-conscious proletariat is not going to emerge until the last vestiges of pre-capitalism are erased. And so the sooner that happens, the better for all of us.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
You are taking the most extremist examples of Islam and putting it as something which is true for all Muslims. Generalisation is what it&#39;s called.

Yes, that is what it&#39;s called...it&#39;s how we make sense of reality since our brains are not large enough to store each and every particularity.

The validity of a "generalization" may be appreciated by the nonexistence of significant exceptions.

At this time, we know of one Muslim country that has established at least a nominally secular republic...that being Turkey. And even there, the treatment of women has attracted condemnation from European "human rights" groups.

Things go downhill from there...precipitously&#33;


In unmitigated shit..."communism" ranks pretty high too.

An expected response from those who defend superstition.

The Leninist despotisms of the last century are certainly no "models" of what I want...but trying to imply that they were, at their worst, even remotely comparable to the Islamic norm is either a sign of your fundamental dishonesty on this question or else fundamental ignorance.


The majority of the world&#39;s proletariat is opposed to communism as a matter of principle.

I rather doubt that...since the only "image" of communism they are likely to have is that of the Leninist despotisms -- as refracted through the bourgeois media and, of course, the sermons of the superstitious.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Enragé]

That&#39;s what this head-scarf law does. It offers children moments of secularism so that they know what the world has to offer beyond the musty confines of a "Holy Mosque".

I&#39;ve been thinking about this all day and you certainly have a very good point here.

How can you expect anyone to be even remotely free if he or she hasnt experienced freedom ever in his or her life. These moments of secularism could accomplish just that.



Muslims may not put it in those terms, but if pressed, they&#39;d acknowledge that, yes, the Islamic faith considers women to be "lower" than men and the Hijab is a means of expressing this. Women are supposed to be "ashamed" of themeselves, while men are free to dress pretty much as they please.

Girls must constantly display their inferiority, while men can dress and act like everyone else without having to wear their "faith" around their necks.
Not exactly. Men are told to dress modestly too, point is however that they dont; which is in direct opposition to their own religion.

Islam as its practiced today is to true Islam what Communism in the USSR was to true communism. (that was the point i was trying to make to redstar)

Now true Islam still sucks but it isnt as nearly as discriminatory between the sexes as the perverted form of it is.


Indeed, as I understand it, the word "Isam" itself means to subjugate before "God" -- although, clearly men don&#39;t have to "subjugate" quite as much.

Muslim means something along the lines of "he who is/has subjugated (himself) to god"
Men have to "subjugate" just as much, "problem" is they dont
It is more a problem of patriarchal hypocrisy than of that particular religion (not to say that said problem does not exist in the religion itself, just less so)

Point here is that some women, in light of the original version of Islam, wear the hijab not because they subjugate more, but because of "respect" and all that load of shit.



Again, this is not a matter of personal freedom or freedom of expression, it&#39;s a matter of children and their basic protection. When a girl who&#39;s lived her entire life knowing nothing but Islam and her Islamic "role" takes off that scarf it isn&#39;t just about clothing, it&#39;s about a paradigm shift; about a realization that, potentialy, she can be an equal to anyone else.

It&#39;s an opportunity to experience a truly secular, albeit academic, environment. And while it is certainly no utopia, it&#39;s certainly better than the alternative.


:blink:
i agree.


Men are permitted to "speak with God" while women are "not deserving" of this "honour".

A fair point
This however illustrating once again how much Islam itself has been perverted by patriarchy; in the time of muhammad women were infact allowed to be in the mosques as well as to participate in discussions in the mosque, this in addition to the existence of female imams.


Hmmm, nice little hierarchy that sets up, isn&#39;t it? And don&#39;t you think for a moment that that fact is lost on anyone, least of all the women involved.

Honestly, do you really believe that Islamic girls growing up don&#39;t notice that it&#39;s the men and the boys who go to the Mosque and then the men and the boys who make all the rules? Don&#39;t you think they see that it&#39;s always the people with penises who have the freedoms and the people with vaginas who have to "cover themselves" and "stay home"?

Subjugation isn&#39;t just about how you set up the rules, it&#39;s also about how you set up society. And in this case, Islamic society is specifically organized to keep women suppressed. That kind of social momentum simply cannot be fought with "kind words" and leaflets.

True
However
just as not all "communists" are Stalinist, not all muslims are patriarchal muslim(a)s (at least not as patriarchal as in the dominant current of muslim thought)
There are female western converts who lived their whole lives secular, with secular parents etc, who eventually chose to be muslima.

(i feel such a devil&#39;s advocate right now).

And yes i know we are talking about kids here but still


I rather doubt that...since the only "image" of communism they are likely to have is that of the Leninist despotisms -- as refracted through the bourgeois media and, of course, the sermons of the superstitious.

That and they think people are too "evil" for communism.
On top of that, the vast majority of the world&#39;s proletariat in fact is religious, are they the enemy? ofcourse not.

redstar your "style" of "debate" accomplishes exactly jack shit. LSD has pretty much convinced me of his viewpoint, but i can guarantee you that even if you had the same viewpoint of LSD your "style" of "debate" would have only antagonised me, not even coming close to convincing, on the contrary.

All you seem to want to do is show everyone your presumed superiority, "lyke omg omg i know sooo much about teh rev0luti0n and shizzle".
Well you&#39;re not, you&#39;re just a prick.

[LSD]

Now true Islam still sucks but it isnt as nearly as discriminatory between the sexes as the perverted form of it is..

I would agree with you on this. Indeed, it&#39;s probably true that Islam was even sexually progressive for its time.

The problem, though, is that that which is progressive in the seventh century is regresive in the twenty-first And which symbolized "respect" a millenia ago, symbolizes subjugation today.


Point here is that some women, in light of the original version of Islam, wear the hijab not because they subjugate more, but because of "respect" and all that load of shit.

But we&#39;re not talking about women here, we&#39;re talking about girls.

Bourgeois legislation is never going to put an end to religous oppression, but this one specific law will help millions of girls experience secular life. Based on what you&#39;ve written above, I think that you&#39;ve come to realize this.

I&#39;m glad. :)

Do keep in mind, though, that this is not in any sense an "endorsement" of the bourgeois state, it is merely a recognition of fact. Just as minimum wage hikes do not end the problem of capitalism, this one law does not end the problem of religion. But we still must acknowledge when people are helped.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:39 AM
No, revolutionaries don&#39;t "join the fight for a reform" at all.

But we do define our positions relative to existant issues. That means that we can analyze events and legislation to determine their societal effect.
Oh, so those you consider "revolutionaries" don&#39;t join the fight, you just sit back and verbally take a position. This armchair revolutionism divorced from the real-life class struggle is definitely not what I mean by revolutionaries.


There was no working class struggle for the end of segregation either, but that didn&#39;t make it any less socially progressive.

What are you talking about? It was precisely working-class people who were the backbone of the fight to end Jim Crow segregation. They fought, some of them died, they forced the ruling class to roll it back. Rosa Parks was a seamstress. E.D. Nixon was a sleeping car porter. People like that initiated the Montgomery Bus Boycott - and went to MLK to ask him to front it. People like that fought the Battle of Birmingham - and won it despite MLK&#39;s vacillations, and at one point his desire to call it off.

The bosses&#39; didn&#39;t end segregation out of the goodness of the hearts, or because of some residual progressive element of capitalism. Like anything else worthwhile, working people fought for it.


The capitalists have, for the most part, skimmed out all pre-capitalist discrimiminations to increase their profit margins and balance thei5 books.

Whitewashing the ugly reality of capitalism. In reality, capitalism perpetuates racist, sexist and other discrimination in order to increase their profit margins by super-exploiting sections of the working class.


What is happening in France is a continuation of the fight between the, now dominant, bourgeois, and, suddenly reinvigored, forces of traditionalism.

So now we know why you&#39;re taking the side of the French state.

This perspective is 100% wrong; there is nothing progressive about capitalism today.

And as I&#39;ve pointed out, there is nothing secular about the politics of the French capitalist state&#33; They&#39;re not fighting to end the funding of religious schools, are they? You dismissed that as irrelevant then - but if you&#39;re going to be claiming the bourgeoisie is conducting a progressive fight against "traditionalism" - it&#39;s 100% relevant.


Remember, the bourgeoisie already won this fight, for the most part, over Christianity. The sudden influx of muslim immigrants from less developped countries, however, has taken the rulling class back in time to a point when they were the progressive class.

Dead wrong. The won the fight over feudalism "for the most part" - and incorporated the rest of it into their system&#33; They didn&#39;t complete the fight because they had to deal with the workers, after the mid-19th century. No more leading progresive fights against precapitalist crap, in alliance with the toilers - instead, they ally with the precapitalist trash against the workers.

That&#39;s what they do around the world, and that&#39;s what they do at home.

"The sudden influx of muslim immigrants" has not changed that. (And, incidentally, the implication of your statement is that immigration has led to a social regression. I won&#39;t belabor how reactionary that is.)

****

No, I don&#39;t think religion can be progressive - but workers who hold religious beliefs can be. It&#39;s the supposedly secular ruling class, not Muslim immigrant workers, who create the danger of rolling back progressive social gains, including church-state separation.

When the bourgeoisie was making its revolution, it didn&#39;t ban individuals from wearing religous symbols. See the First Amendment and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, quoted in the first post in this thread.

When the French state was carrying out "laicite" and taking down the crucifixes from schoolroom walls, it didn&#39;t ban individual students from wearing them.

That&#39;s because secularism, the separation of church and state, doesn&#39;t require it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
redstar your "style" of "debate" accomplishes exactly jack shit. LSD has pretty much convinced me of his viewpoint, but i can guarantee you that even if you had the same viewpoint of LSD your "style" of "debate" would have only antagonised me, not even coming close to convincing, on the contrary.

All you seem to want to do is show everyone your presumed superiority, "lyke omg omg i know sooo much about teh rev0luti0n and shizzle".
Well you&#39;re not, you&#39;re just a prick.

Thanks for your support. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
And, incidentally, the implication of your statement is that immigration has led to a social regression. I won&#39;t belabor how reactionary that is.

Go ahead and "belabor" it. I&#39;d be curious how or why it&#39;s "reactionary" to assume that people who immigrate from less "advanced" countries to more "advanced" countries in substantial numbers would not be a socially "regressive" factor.

It can certainly go in "the other direction". We know from American history that a substantial number of immigrants from western Europe brought more politically advanced ideas with them and had a very strong "left" influence on American politics from 1850 to probably as late as 1940 or so.

So why shouldn&#39;t people who bring medieval superstitions with them have a regressive effect on the politics of the "more advanced" country they emigrate to?


No, I don&#39;t think religion can be progressive - but workers who hold religious beliefs can be.

A minority&#33; By accident&#33; And only temporarily&#33;

To formulate either strategy or tactics on the assumption that religious beliefs "don&#39;t matter" is just foolishness&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Dyst]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 3 2006, 04:16 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 3 2006, 04:16 AM)
Severian
And, incidentally, the implication of your statement is that immigration has led to a social regression. I won&#39;t belabor how reactionary that is.

Go ahead and "belabor" it. I&#39;d be curious how or why it&#39;s "reactionary" to assume that people who immigrate from less "advanced" countries to more "advanced" countries in substantial numbers would not be a socially "regressive" factor.

It can certainly go in "the other direction". We know from American history that a substantial number of immigrants from western Europe brought more politically advanced ideas with them and had a very strong "left" influence on American politics from 1850 to probably as late as 1940 or so.

So why shouldn&#39;t people who bring medieval superstitions with them have a regressive effect on the politics of the "more advanced" country they emigrate to?


No, I don&#39;t think religion can be progressive - but workers who hold religious beliefs can be.

A minority&#33; By accident&#33; And only temporarily&#33;

To formulate either strategy or tactics on the assumption that religious beliefs "don&#39;t matter" is just foolishness&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Cultural racism is the same kind of racism we have seen through all times, in a different name of course.

It is fine that you believe middle-eastern countries are less (politically, economically and scientifcally) advanced than "western countries", but it is not fine that you dismiss their culture as if it consists only of "medieval superstition".

To be honest it seems to me you have been influenced by the (pro-war) propaganda going on in your country. If something is reactionary, that is.

And the fact that you do claim that immigration has led to a social regression is fascist. It would certainly not be a socially "regressive" factor for the immigrants.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Keiza+--> (Keiza)Cultural racism is the same kind of racism we have seen through all times, in a different name of course.[/b]

Horseshit&#33;

All forms of genuine racism posit that human behavior is inherited from one&#39;s parents...so people who are uncivilized or less civilized at any given point in history are so "because" of their "race".

There is simply no such thing as "cultural racism"...it&#39;s a stupid oxymoron coined by guilt-ridden western bourgeois liberals.


...but it is not fine that you dismiss their culture as if it consists only of "medieval superstition".

What else is relevant to this thread?

I&#39;m not questioning the proposition that Muslim countries have a rudimentary grasp of modernity...though it does appear that their buildings just suddenly collapse with greater frequency than is normal in the "west".

And their airlines seem to suffer more crashes than one would normally expect.

Nor am I aware of any Nobel Prizes won by Muslim "scientists".

The cultural dominance of Islam in those places is not "controversial", is it?

And Islam IS a medieval superstition, is it not?


To be honest it seems to me you have been influenced by the (pro-war) propaganda going on in your country.

I both predicted the resistance in Iraq and have consistently supported it on this board.

I am for the unconditional defeat of U.S. imperialism in any country no matter what its "culture"...and I have held that position for more than four decades&#33;

Just because U.S. imperialism is the fortress of world reaction does not make Islam "progressive".


And the fact that you do claim that immigration has led to a social regression is fascist.

You obviously couldn&#39;t tell the difference between fascism and rheumatism.

But setting that aside, I&#39;ll ask you the same question I asked Severian.


redstar2000
So why shouldn&#39;t people who bring medieval superstitions with them have a regressive effect on the politics of the "more advanced" country they emigrate to?

Got any answers? :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[violencia.Proletariat]

Cultural racism is the same kind of racism we have seen through all times, in a different name of course.

:lol: If RedStar is referring to the Catholic immigrants (the majority if I&#39;m not mistaken) in America in the case above, your statement makes no sense. Catholicism is not a third world culture, it was spread to those countries by those in what is known as the first world today. Therefore he could not be culturally racist in favor of the first world and hold this viewpoint.

[Dyst]

So why shouldn&#39;t people who bring medieval superstitions with them have a regressive effect on the politics of the "more advanced" country they emigrate to?

Well, first of all, I assume you are thinking of for example muslims emigrating into U.S. I live in Norway and right now I am doing a project (for school) on religious influence on moral issues in our society. We spoke with around 15 imams (don&#39;t know if this is the english word, muslim priests) as well as 15 protestant and catholic priests. We asked them what they thought about the following issues: Abortion, biochemistry and homosexuality.

Interestingly enough, all the christians we asked with the exception of two protestants, were "against" all those subjects. Regarding abortion, ca. 8 of the imams said the norwegian laws are "ok as they are", 2 actually said it&#39;s "ok within 4 months" and the rest said it is ok only if the mothers health is in danger. Biochemistry, half thought was ok half thought was "playing God". Homosexuality most were against.

So, I don&#39;t know if the people we asked could be called representatives or anything, but it did show that at least in Norway, muslim leaders have a tendency to be more liberal then christian leaders.

Anyways, back to the point. It may have a regressive effect on the politics, but I&#39;m certain it will have a progressive effect on the culture.



I&#39;m not questioning the proposition that Muslim countries have a rudimentary grasp of modernity...though it does appear that their buildings just suddenly collapse with greater frequency than is normal in the "west".

And their airlines seem to suffer more crashes than one would normally expect.

Nor am I aware of any Nobel Prizes won by Muslim "scientists".

The cultural dominance of Islam in those places is not "controversial", is it?

And Islam IS a medieval superstition, is it not?
Everything&#39;s relative.

Anyways, you misunderstood me. I said their culture, not their infrastructure or technology. "Cultural dominance" (I never said they were dominant, I just think that parts of their culture can be considered interesting) is certainly not measured by frequency of buildings collapsing.

By culture I mean art, music, architecture, etc. Even some philosophy.



There is simply no such thing as "cultural racism"...it&#39;s a stupid oxymoron coined by guilt-ridden western bourgeois liberals.
Well I have heard people use the words "I respect their culture, but I do not want it to mix up with mine". I would not know what else to call that then cultural discrimination. Maybe idiocy?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Well, first of all, I assume you are thinking of for example muslims emigrating into U.S. I live in Norway and right now I am doing a project (for school) on religious influence on moral issues in our society. We spoke with around 15 imams (don&#39;t know if this is the english word, muslim priests) as well as 15 protestant and catholic priests. We asked them what they thought about the following issues: Abortion, biochemistry and homosexuality.

:lol: We dont prefer 1st world superstition to middle eastern or far eastern, or any other superstition. We think its ALL CRAP.

Secondly, with polls, they are known not to be accurate until you ask at least a thousand people.


Anyways, back to the point. It may have a regressive effect on the politics, but I&#39;m certain it will have a progressive effect on the culture.

Like forcing girls to cover their faces in France.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:38 AM

Well, first of all, I assume you are thinking of for example muslims emigrating into U.S. I live in Norway and right now I am doing a project (for school) on religious influence on moral issues in our society. We spoke with around 15 imams (don&#39;t know if this is the english word, muslim priests) as well as 15 protestant and catholic priests. We asked them what they thought about the following issues: Abortion, biochemistry and homosexuality.

:lol: We dont prefer 1st world superstition to middle eastern or far eastern, or any other superstition. We think its ALL CRAP.

Secondly, with polls, they are known not to be accurate until you ask at least a thousand people.


Anyways, back to the point. It may have a regressive effect on the politics, but I&#39;m certain it will have a progressive effect on the culture.

Like forcing girls to cover their faces in France.
It is just one ideology which thinks of immigration as primarily negative&#33; :angry:

First, you say you don&#39;t care, since hey, it&#39;s ALL CRAP. :lol:
Then you point out that the poll probably isn&#39;t very accurate... :rolleyes:

So, you guys are against immigration it seems. Because they could be religious. Even though there are probably over 50-60 % religious people in your nation in the first place.

Or maybe you just want to allow non-religious people to emigrate? :huh:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Like forcing girls to cover their faces in France.
First, you say you don&#39;t care, since hey, it&#39;s ALL CRAP. :lol:
Then you point out that the poll probably isn&#39;t very accurate... :rolleyes:

I dont need your poll to see that religion from any region is reactionary.

I noted your poll was innacurate, I wasnt the one using it to prove my point.


So, you guys are against immigration it seems. Because they could be religious.

No, but in a revolutionary society, immigrants would be warned that they could not set up a church, if they did they would be booted out of the commune. This goes for people native to the country too, below too.

If they participated in any kind of patriarchy, etc, they would not be accepted kindly.


Even though there are probably over 50-60 % religious people in your nation in the first place.

This will change to the opposite before proletarian revolution is succesful.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:01 AM

Like forcing girls to cover their faces in France.
First, you say you don&#39;t care, since hey, it&#39;s ALL CRAP. :lol:
Then you point out that the poll probably isn&#39;t very accurate... :rolleyes:

I dont need your poll to see that religion from any region is reactionary.

I noted your poll was innacurate, I wasnt the one using it to prove my point.


So, you guys are against immigration it seems. Because they could be religious.

No, but in a revolutionary society, immigrants would be warned that they could not set up a church, if they did they would be booted out of the commune. This goes for people native to the country too, below too.

If they participated in any kind of patriarchy, etc, they would not be accepted kindly.



Even though there are probably over 50-60 % religious people in your nation in the first place.

This will change to the opposite before proletarian revolution is succesful.
I didn&#39;t use it to prove my point either. I just stated my findings, and in fact said "back to the point" afterwards, or something like that.

And yes, religion is on the fall. In fact, it is dropping quite dramatically, at least in Norway and I guess most of the other nations in Europe.

It might be stupid of me, but I am going to assume that this is caused by technological and scientifical progress, in those individual countries. That would mean, that muslim countries, after they have become capitalistic will also see a drop in religious activity.

So, when the communist revolution will come, it will of course come in a capitalist society, where religious activity is close to non-existant or non-existant at all.

I do not see why you argue so much in favor of banning all religion after the revolution, simply because I don&#39;t see the point as I don&#39;t think it will be a problem.

[violencia.Proletariat]

It might be stupid of me, but I am going to assume that this is caused by technological and scientifical progress, in those individual countries. That would mean, that muslim countries, after they have become capitalistic will also see a drop in religious activity.

I completely agree&#33;


So, when the communist revolution will come, it will of course come in a capitalist society, where religious activity is close to non-existant or non-existant at all.

I agree again


I do not see why you argue so much in favor of banning all religion after the revolution, simply because I don&#39;t see the point as I don&#39;t think it will be a problem.

The 3rd world and developing capitalist countries arent at the same historical level that the advanced capitalist countries are. Therefore, when we have become communist and grown out of religion, this doesnt mean the immigrants from those countries have too. So them wanting to start a church/mosque/whatevere would be counterrevolutionary.

[Comrade-Z]

Anyways, you misunderstood me. I said their culture, not their infrastructure or technology. "Cultural dominance" (I never said they were dominant, I just think that parts of their culture can be considered interesting) is certainly not measured by frequency of buildings collapsing.

By culture I mean art, music, architecture, etc. Even some philosophy.

One&#39;s culture--that is, one&#39;s way of life--is greatly influenced by things such as infrastructure and technology.

A person who has unrestricted internet access is likely to think and behave very differently than a person living out in the desert without access to even any printed material, to use an extreme example.

A person with running water, electricty, and a working plumbing system is likely to have very different day-to-day concerns (and thus a completely different mindset) than a person lacking those things, to use another example.

The dominant cultures of the middle east certainly are "interesting," if you find studying backward quasi-feudal-quasi-tribal cultures to be interesting work. Actually, I am reading a book on pre-capitalist societies right now (The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Frederick Engels) and it is fascinating theoretical stuff. But I fail to see what these societies have to offer us with regards to any practical programme or action.

Their art probably primarily revolves around Islam (isn&#39;t "western"--meaning, modern--music, literature, art, and of course pornography outlawed in a lot of Islamic communities?)

Their architecture probably primarily revolves around either utilitarian requirements of daily living or Islam.

Their philosophical take on life and reality probably revolves primarily around...you guessed it.

For the most part, aside from those "Enlightenment" and proto-materialist thinkers who must be slowly emerging among their bourgeoisies as we speak, what can we gain from their cultures?


Well I have heard people use the words "I respect their culture, but I do not want it to mix up with mine". I would not know what else to call that then cultural discrimination. Maybe idiocy?

I&#39;ve heard white-supremacists use this language, and for them the term "culture" is a subtle way of saying "race." Because, nowadays, it&#39;s not quite as fashionable to be openly racist. We have made that much progress.

After all, what objection would they have to the "culture" of black Christians? They probably believe in 90% of the same stuff (Christian god, anti-abortion, father as unquestioned head of the household, anti-homosexual, anti-communism, education as teacher of discipline and force for "steering kids on the right path in life," etc.). For them it&#39;s really the "race"--skin color--that bothers them.

But we aren&#39;t talking about imaginary concepts such as "race." We are talking about ideas and actions that have very real consequences.

Would you want to admit more people into your country who hated homosexuals and thought women should be submissive to men, regardless of their "race" or geographical place of origin? Then why discount the consequences of admitting Catholics from Mexico or Muslims from Iran into the U.S.?

(Note: Concerning the hypothetical Catholic from Mexico, the important thing is not that the person is from Mexico or has "darker skin" than others. The important thing is that this person has really bad ideas--in this case, Catholicism. These bad ideas will translate into really bad actions, such as subjugation of women, when given the opportunity. Invariably.

Furthermore, Mexican culture is not backward because of the fact that they live in a geographical region known as "Mexico" or because they have slightly darker skin. Instead, Mexican culture is backward because its ideas are backward--and this, in turn, is largely because its economic and technological development is backward compared to the U.S. But, given time, Mexico will become more advanced. But in the meantime, a lot of immigrants from that society will carry with them those backwards ideas.)

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 3 2006, 10:03 AM

Anyways, you misunderstood me. I said their culture, not their infrastructure or technology. "Cultural dominance" (I never said they were dominant, I just think that parts of their culture can be considered interesting) is certainly not measured by frequency of buildings collapsing.

By culture I mean art, music, architecture, etc. Even some philosophy.

One&#39;s culture--that is, one&#39;s way of life--is greatly influenced by things such as infrastructure and technology.

A person who has unrestricted internet access is likely to think and behave very differently than a person living out in the desert without access to even any printed material, to use an extreme example.

A person with running water, electricty, and a working plumbing system is likely to have very different day-to-day concerns (and thus a completely different mindset) than a person lacking those things, to use another example.

The dominant cultures of the middle east certainly are "interesting," if you find studying backward quasi-feudal-quasi-tribal cultures to be interesting work. Actually, I am reading a book on pre-capitalist societies right now (The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Frederick Engels) and it is fascinating theoretical stuff. But I fail to see what these societies have to offer us with regards to any practical programme or action.

Their art probably primarily revolves around Islam (isn&#39;t "western"--meaning, modern--music, literature, art, and of course pornography outlawed in a lot of Islamic communities?)

Their architecture probably primarily revolves around either utilitarian requirements of daily living or Islam.

Their philosophical take on life and reality probably revolves primarily around...you guessed it.

For the most part, aside from those "Enlightenment" and proto-materialist thinkers who must be slowly emerging among their bourgeoisies as we speak, what can we gain from their cultures?


Well I have heard people use the words "I respect their culture, but I do not want it to mix up with mine". I would not know what else to call that then cultural discrimination. Maybe idiocy?

I&#39;ve heard white-supremacists use this language, and for them the term "culture" is a subtle way of saying "race." Because, nowadays, it&#39;s not quite as fashionable to be openly racist. We have made that much progress.

After all, what objection would they have to the "culture" of black Christians? They probably believe in 90% of the same stuff (Christian god, anti-abortion, father as unquestioned head of the household, anti-homosexual, anti-communism, education as teacher of discipline and force for "steering kids on the right path in life," etc.). For them it&#39;s really the "race"--skin color--that bothers them.

But we aren&#39;t talking about imaginary concepts such as "race." We are talking about ideas and actions that have very real consequences.

Would you want to admit more people into your country who hated homosexuals and thought women should be submissive to men, regardless of their "race" or geographical place of origin? Then why discount the consequences of admitting Catholics from Mexico or Muslims from Iran into the U.S.?

(Note: Concerning the hypothetical Catholic from Mexico, the important thing is not that the person is from Mexico or has "darker skin" than others. The important thing is that this person has really bad ideas--in this case, Catholicism. These bad ideas will translate into really bad actions, such as subjugation of women, when given the opportunity. Invariably.

Furthermore, Mexican culture is not backward because of the fact that they live in a geographical region known as "Mexico" or because they have slightly darker skin. Instead, Mexican culture is backward because its ideas are backward--and this, in turn, is largely because its economic and technological development is backward compared to the U.S. But, given time, Mexico will become more advanced. But in the meantime, a lot of immigrants from that society will carry with them those backwards ideas.)
Well, sure, their culture has been affected by Islam, but so has western culture by Christianity.

This doesn&#39;t mean in any way that all immigrants coming from Islamic countries can bring with them is their religious activities.

And we can learn from them, considering what you said. "We" are (maybe) people with unrestricted internet access, water supply, electricity, etc. While "they" may come from a situation where they did not have those things.

Thus we can learn about the situation in most areas of the world except the western.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Keiza
By culture I mean art, music, architecture, etc. Even some philosophy.

Who&#39;s "against" that stuff?

Except the "philosophy" part?

Which is certain to be based on some superstition, right?

And perhaps "architecture"...the last thing any urban landscape needs is more "holy buildings"&#33;


Well I have heard people use the words "I respect their culture, but I do not want it to mix up with mine".

I suspect then that the word you want is xenophobia...the fear of the "foreign". It can have "racist" motivations, but it&#39;s not "racism" as such.


Or maybe you just want to allow non-religious people to emigrate?

Unfortunately impractical at the present time...but I think that&#39;s likely to be the case in the distant future.

Who wants more superstitious people around?


And we can learn from them, considering what you said. "We" are (maybe) people with unrestricted internet access, water supply, electricity, etc. While "they" may come from a situation where they did not have those things.

Thus we can learn about the situation in most areas of the world except the western.

I learned from two hurricanes "what it&#39;s like" to live in the "third world"...it really sucks&#33;

In fact, for anyone who&#39;s not young and healthy, it&#39;s deadly&#33;

The very high percentage of people in the 15-25 year-old age bracket in those places is not simply a reflection of the high birth rate...it also reflects the high death rate for people outside of those ages.

I imagine the people most in need of education about those conditions are western primitivists...who romanticize pre-capitalist "life" as if it were "a garden of Eden" instead of the living Hell that it actually is.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Dyst]

Except the "philosophy" part?

Which is certain to be based on some superstition, right?

Well, philosophy based on superstition is not philosophy. So, no. I got to admit I don&#39;t know much about current middle-eastern philosophy. So there, we got something to learn about. Simply because knowledge of other people is a valuable thing.


And perhaps "architecture"...the last thing any urban landscape needs is more "holy buildings"&#33;
You know better than this... I can tell you 95% of all buildings in muslim countries are not "holy". And even if they were, it is still architecture and has in itself got nothing to do with religion.


Unfortunately impractical at the present time...but I think that&#39;s likely to be the case in the distant future.

Who wants more superstitious people around?
You don&#39;t want religious people near you. There is a difference between "in your country" and "around".


I imagine the people most in need of education about those conditions are western primitivists...who romanticize pre-capitalist "life" as if it were "a garden of Eden" instead of the living Hell that it actually is.

You fail to see the point I had. It is promoters of capitalism, most people, who need to learn about the rest of the world and wake up. If they were to experience how ~70% lives, chances are good they would be more sceptical of how capitalism works.

After all, of course capitalism has brought a change to many people, but for many it is still a "living hell".

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:35 PM

Bourgeois legislation is never going to put an end to religous oppression, but this one specific law will help millions of girls experience secular life. Based on what you&#39;ve written above, I think that you&#39;ve come to realize this.


i have indeed

no matter what argument one can come up with against this law, your point still stands.

If those girls grow up without having been able to experience secularism/freedom from the headscarf; how on earth are they going to be able to make a well educated decision whether or not they want to keep wearing it in adult life? (which should be possible, we agree on that)

Now ofcourse as you said it isnt ideal, it fights coercion with more coercion...but well there isnt really anything better we can do at the moment

[Severian]

Originally posted by LSD+Feb 27 2006, 08:00 PM--> (LSD &#064; Feb 27 2006, 08:00 PM)Thanks to the "bourgeois-democratic rights" that the French state ostensibly adheres to and that you, paradoxically, seem to be invoking, parents have a legal "right" to raise their children any way they please.
.....
Again, you cite bourgeois notions about "religious freedom" as if they carried some sort of supernaturalistic weight.[/b]

versus


[email protected] 1 2006, 10:39 AM
Sexism, racism, homophobia, and religion are rampant among the workers of the world, especially those from third world countries. In this regard, the modern first world bourgeoisie tends to be more advanced.

The capitalists have, for the most part, skimmed out all pre-capitalist discrimiminations to increase their profit margins and balance thei5 books. It&#39;s what capitalism does better than anything else: move a society from tribalism to cheque-books.

It&#39;s never a comfortable transition, but historically speaking, it appears to be a nescessary one. What is happening in France is a continuation of the fight between the, now dominant, bourgeois, and, suddenly reinvigored, forces of traditionalism. Remember, the bourgeoisie already won this fight, for the most part, over Christianity. The sudden influx of muslim immigrants from less developped countries, however, has taken the rulling class back in time to a point when they were the progressive class.

So what&#39;s up with this contradiction? Here we have someone who thinks the capitalists are still a progressive class, who tend to eliminate &#39;pre-capitalist discriminations&#39; and are &#39;more advanced&#39; than &#39;the workers of the world, especially those from third world countries&#39;.....deriding bourgeois-democratic ideas and yours truly for seeking to defend and extend bourgeois-democratic rights.

Lemme suggest it&#39;s because the capitalists are not a progressive class...so if you&#39;re going to follow in their footsteps, you have to ditch the rights the bourgeoisie established in the held in the past, when they really were progressive. Since the bourgeoisie itself is seeking to ditch them (gradually in some cases) and to promote discrimination - in this case, against immigrant workers - in order to "increase their profit margins and balance thei5 books."


I never proposed that we should "endorse" this law, I merely said that we should not oppose it.

And further, what&#39;s up with this? If in fact the bourgeoisie is so progressive and advanced, why be ashamed of supporting their laws? Why so halfhearted? Why the lawyer quibbles? Don&#39;t support, just not oppose, for crying out loud&#33;

When the bourgeoisie was, in reality, progressive, revolutionary workers weren&#39;t mealy-mouthed or shamefaced about allying with them against survivals of feudalism. Support for bourgeois-democratic measures was proudly proclaimed, workers mobilized to push them through, if possible make the capitalists go further than they wanted to......

But of course that isn&#39;t the reality we face today, and those who back the capitalist class while claiming to be proletarian revolutionaries have to hide behind a smokescreen.

[LSD]

So what&#39;s up with this contradiction?

There is none. You&#39;re inventing "contradiction" to try and wrest some "moral victory" from this.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume that you are genuinely confused on where I stand. Allow me to explain then.

I fully and completely support the right to freedom of expression, I accept no limitations on this right. I only limit to whom it applies based on capacity.

Just as I do not think a 14 year old girl raised in a strictly Muslim environment is sufficiently mature to "express herself" through "consenting" to genital mutilation, I do not believe she is sufficiently mature to "express herself" through her choice of headgear.

I believe that she must first be exposed to alternatives and grow up cognitively before she is in a position to make a reasoned and informed decision.

Once she is of age, however, I accept zero compromises in her absolute right to free speech.


Here we have someone who thinks the capitalists are still a progressive class, who tend to eliminate &#39;pre-capitalist discriminations&#39; and are &#39;more advanced&#39; than &#39;the workers of the world, especially those from third world countries&#39;.....deriding bourgeois-democratic ideas and yours truly for seeking to defend and extend bourgeois-democratic rights.

Clearly, you&#39;ve missed my point entirely.

I never "derided" basic human rights. Nowhere in any of my posts will you find me dismiss the right to privacy or speech or any other classically considered "enlightenment" rights.

Indeed, I&#39;ve often been accused of being overly protective of such rights, especially as I am in favour of allowing reactionaries free speech in a post-revolutionary society.

Certainly me and Redstar have had many a long argument on the subject. And, I&#39;d imagine, that you would find my position on the subject distasteful as well.

Given your political allegiances and Lenin&#39;s position on the subject, you almost certainly agree with Redstar&#39;s mantra of "no free speech for fascists". If so, that would mean that my respect for "bourgeois-democratic" rights transcends your own. I guess that means that your hyperbole about my "derision" of human rights missed the mark pretty substantially.

But you are correct in that I attacked you for "defending bourgeois-democratic rights". It seems, however, that you failed to understand why.

Again, I respect human rights profoundly. What I do not respect are labels. I evaluate a right or a freedom on its merits and I proudly reject the assertion that anything is "above" being evaluated.

Those "bourgeois-democratic rights" which are valid are so because of implicit rational nescessity, not historical accident.

Remember, the "right" to property is as much a "bourgeois-democratic" staple as the right to free speech.

When I tried to explain this to you, you responded with

Originally posted by you
Yeah, on this supposedly "revolutionary left" board I tend to assume some things as already established, like the communist attitude towards bourgeois-democratic rights.

Which, it must be said, was not a particularly helpful response.

It would seem to me that you are contending that unless someone accepts the validity of "bourgeois-democratic" rights prima facie, you do not consider them a communist. I must tell you that I have no desire to fit under such a ludicrous definition.

If you wish to prove a "right to religion" exists and that this case falls under its protections, you are obligated to prove it.

Anything else is rhetoric, nothing more.


And further, what&#39;s up with this? If in fact the bourgeoisie is so progressive and advanced, why be ashamed of supporting their laws?

Because I&#39;m ashamed of the existance of the bourgeois state and I seek its destruction.

Giving public support or endorsement to an organization as corrupt and illegitimate as the French State reinforces its power and perpetuates its life. I have no desire to do that.

By the same token, however, I have no desire to see the reactionary and oppressive force of religious indoctrination continue to thrive. I have no real means of fighting that power however, so I am perfectly prepared to stand back and let someone else do the job ...even if I don&#39;t happen to like them.

Again, this is a battle between two coercive intstuments neither of which are deserving of leftist support. This is a conflict that, frankly, does not concern us.

If we are asked to take a position on it, we should be honest, but we should make no public action in defense of either side as to do so would strengthen them generally and make them a more formidable foe in the fights which we do have with them.

If the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, all the better for me. That&#39;s our situation here and we should not be embarassed to admit it.


When the bourgeoisie was, in reality, progressive, revolutionary workers weren&#39;t mealy-mouthed or shamefaced about allying with them against survivals of feudalism.

That&#39;s correct, but that&#39;s because then the fight directly involved them. Today it does not.

The proletariat is not under attack by these laws, the religious are.

You are correct in that a large segment of the proletariat would describe itself as religious, but that is, almost universally, in name only.

It is an extreme minority of the workers who actually live their lives as if "God" were "waching them". It is of that minority, as well as minorities of other economic classes, that we speak here.

But it is not in their economic role that we consider them, but in their social one: as adherents and promulgators of religious oppression.

Religious individuals who perpetuate "head-scarfs" and the social and moral paradigm that accompanies them are spreading hatred, bigotry, and coercive oppression. They are effecting the virtual slavery of an enormous group of people and they are doing it primary through children.

Whether you like the bourgeois state or not, it cannot be denied that it is functionaly atheist. It may, for one political reason or another, espouse parochial slogans (as in the United States) or fund parochial schools (as in France), but institutionaly speaking, it acts as a secular organization.

Its battle against head-scarfs etcetera is not a "clash of civilizations" or "religious war", it is an attempt at furthering that secular paradigm. Now, this attempt may be half-hearted or tainted by obvious hypocrisy in other areas, but that does not make the act itself any less secular.

As I have been trying to explain for two pages now, this is not our fight. This is Paris 1781 or the United States 1776. This is Robbespierre and the "Church of reason", Jefferson and the "redacted Bible".

This is the revolutionary bourgeoisie pulling priests from churches and shooting them. It&#39;s not quite on the same scale today, but it&#39;s the same basic purpose.

You see an element of racism in a western country attacking a religion which is primarily held by people of a non-western race. You&#39;re probably correct to a degree. Certainly there&#39;s a growing fear in Europe about third-world immigration and "national cultures".

But beyond the fear-mongering and politicking, there is a genuine social pheonomenon here. When large-scale movements of peoples occurs, it carries with it social transformations.

Undeniably, most of the third world is less advanced than the first. That is, after all, why it&#39;s called the "third". And, as any student of Marx would tell you, environment determines consciousness and so a less developed country will have a less developed society.

That&#39;s why there is still female circumcision happening in Africa but not North America.

When large numbers of people from less developed socities move into more developed ones, they take with them many social artifacts from their previous countries; religion is a particularly noteworthy example.

The local bourgeoisie is bothered by this trend, not because of some racist hidden agenda, but because of genuine class interest.

In your view, the bourgeoisie has abandoned its secular aims, but that&#39;s only partly true. In reality, it&#39;s reformed them. The capitalists have become the new rulling class and as such they are less interested in social change than they once were. Furthermore, they are now interested in forming alliances with those who can maintain their class privalege. The clergy were their enemy when it was propping up feudalism, it is now their friend as it props up capitalism.

That said, though, it is still in the interst of the bosses to have an efficient, dedicated work-force to produce their products and a materialistic consumer base to buy them. A little church time is good to keep the people distracted, but too much devotion to the church means too much power in church hands and too much influence by church doctrines.

And as much as we like to see our enemies as a monolithic force, the fact is that the capitalist-religion alliance has always been an unsteady one. Remember, a substantial section of the religious establishment is not enthralled with the consumeristic culture that the capitalists survive upon. Should the ideals of fundamentalist Christianity, or fundamentalist Islam, ever take hold, it would present a grave threat to the continued dominance of the bourgeois class.

Given population trends as well as contemporary cultural characters, the latter is a more potent force than the former. Fundamentalist Christianity is still very much alive, but it is not nearly as active or mainstream as fundamentalist Islam. Interestingly enough, though, there was a time when it was, and it is no coincidence that it was durring that time that the bourgeoisie was actively anti-Christian.

Islam, today, represents a viable social challange to capitalistic secularism and the bourgeoisie is well aware of that. Religion as a pliable opiate is good business, religion as a radical counterculture is dangerous.

Accordingly, it is in the bourgeoisie&#39;s interest to suppress, to a degree, the spread of religious faith, especially the more fundamentalist varieties. They will only go so far in their opposition, of course, because, again, for the moment they still need religion, but they will still attempt to keep religion a moderate social influence.

That means that, from time to time, the bourgeoisie will take an active stand against religon, as in this "head-scarf" instance. They will not go all the way. They will not, for instance, ban parochial schooling. Indeed, as you pointed out, they may even fund it, but will still take steps to keep "faith" in line; to keep it subservient to capitalist interests.

The bourgeois state will, again, never end religion, but, occasionaly, it will help out in fighting it.

When those times come, we should not be afraid to stand back and let it happen; the more power against oppression the better. This law will help in the liberation of millions of girls and may well introduce them to their first taste of freedom.

That is a progressive act, even if the people commiting it are as dirty as sin.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:29 AM
Given your political allegiances and Lenin&#39;s position on the subject, you almost certainly agree with Redstar&#39;s mantra of "no free speech for fascists".
No. I&#39;m not for the bosses&#39; state banning fascists, either. (Or pretending to ban them, which is what it amounts to in reality.)

And as you&#39;ve made a claim about Lenin&#39;s view on the subject.....source?



When the bourgeoisie was, in reality, progressive, revolutionary workers weren&#39;t mealy-mouthed or shamefaced about allying with them against survivals of feudalism.

That&#39;s correct, but that&#39;s because then the fight directly involved them. Today it does not.

The proletariat is not under attack by these laws, the religious are.

What? I have no idea what you mean by this.

Taking it literally: workers allied with the bourgeoisie against feudalism because at that time bourgeois laws attacked the workers; but now the bourgeoisie is attacking "the religious" instead of workers, so we have to half-assed support them. Hopefully you have marginally better sense than that.

Supposing you mean it was the feudalists directly attacking the workers, that&#39;s false; it is capitalists, not feudal lords, who have always been the direct exploiters of the working class.

From later in your post:


As I have been trying to explain for two pages now, this is not our fight. This is Paris 1781 or the United States 1776. This is Robbespierre and the "Church of reason", Jefferson and the "redacted Bible".

If that was true, it certainly would be our fight. (You&#39;ve given no evidence or argument in this post or any other to demonstrate it is true, nor responded to any of my arguments demonstrating why it is not.)

The embryonic working class of that time certainly did not stand aside. In 1848, the workers didn&#39;t stand aside from the bourgeois-democratic revolution - it was the bourgeoisie who stood aside&#33;

A revolutionary concept of the interests of the working class cannot be narrow or limited to what "directly involves" us. The working class can only emancipate ourselves by smashing every kind of exploitation and oppression, and in alliance with all the oppressed and exploited.

Which is why it was in the workers&#39; interest to join the fight against feudalism, even though that means against the enemies of our enemies, as the Manifesto puts it.

I&#39;ll point out that again you&#39;re talking about "the religious" as if they&#39;re a class force, but they&#39;re not. When the bourgeoisie was progressive, it was fighting against a class of feudal landowners, and a Church which owned a third of the land in France&#33; Not just "traditions" - how idealist&#33;

What class is the bourgeoisie fighting against today...other than the working class? 1789...without Feudalism? 1776...without King George?


You are correct in that a large segment of the proletariat would describe itself as religious, but that is, almost universally, in name only.

It is an extreme minority of the workers who actually live their lives as if "God" were "waching them".

Nobody lives their lives that way - particularly the clergy&#33; - so I guess you can stop worrying about religion then. It exists "in name only."


But it is not in their economic role that we consider them, but in their social one: as adherents and promulgators of religious oppression.

And what material class interests does that serve?


Whether you like the bourgeois state or not, it cannot be denied that it is functionaly atheist. It may, for one political reason or another, espouse parochial slogans (as in the United States) or fund parochial schools (as in France), but institutionaly speaking, it acts as a secular organization.

What? How exactly does the state fund religious schools, if not "institutionaly"? I can and do, and have successfully denied that it is "functionaly atheist".


Its battle against head-scarfs etcetera is not a "clash of civilizations" or "religious war", it is an attempt at furthering that secular paradigm.

It is neither. It is an attempt to further the class interests of the French capitalist class. Which are in conflict, not with some imaginary class more reactionary than its own, but with the interests of the very real, very flesh-and-blood working class.

Material class interests, not ideal "paradigms".


This is the revolutionary bourgeoisie pulling priests from churches and shooting them. It&#39;s not quite on the same scale today, but it&#39;s the same basic purpose.

We may well see the bourgeoisie, in France and other countries, pulling Muslim clergy out of mosques and shooting them....but there will be nothing revolutionary about it. Any more than it was revolutionary for the Brownshirts to attack rabbis.

Workers, out of an elementary sense of "we&#39;re next", will have to oppose those attacks, with defense squads or whatever other means comes to hand...we can see how much use you&#39;ll be.


That said, though, it is still in the interst of the bosses to have an efficient, dedicated work-force to produce their products and a materialistic consumer base to buy them. A little church time is good to keep the people distracted, but too much devotion to the church means too much power in church hands and too much influence by church doctrines.

And as much as we like to see our enemies as a monolithic force, the fact is that the capitalist-religion alliance has always been an unsteady one. Remember, a substantial section of the religious establishment is not enthralled with the consumeristic culture that the capitalists survive upon. Should the ideals of fundamentalist Christianity, or fundamentalist Islam, ever take hold, it would present a grave threat to the continued dominance of the bourgeois class.

There&#39;s nothing anti-capitalist about anti-consumerism - in fact the bosses agree that workers consume too much. They have to drive down our "consumeristic" expectations in order to lower the value of labor-power, aka our wages.

And "fundamentalist Islam" has taken power in Iran, been elected in Turkey, etc., without threatening the "continued dominance of the bourgeois class." In fact, it&#39;s advanced Iran&#39;s national capitalist development, while keeping the working class at bay.

In France, religion and the church have also become an implement of defending the bourgeois order. What other class is there for it to serve? So power in church hands is not counterposed to power in bourgeois hands: it is one of the ways their power is wielded.

This was on display during the suburb riots: the main "Islamic fundamentalist" organization in France sent people out to try to cool down the streets, persuade the youth to stop setting things on fire. Its leader stated his agreement with Sarkozy&#39;s description of the rioters as "scum". So much for the fundamentalist threat to the French bourgeoisie.

Similarly ultraright and fascist "Christian" groups. They are occasionally anticapitalist in their rhetoric...but if anything, less so than the fascists of the 1930s.


Fundamentalist Christianity is still very much alive, but it is not nearly as active or mainstream as fundamentalist Islam. Interestingly enough, though, there was a time when it was, and it is no coincidence that it was durring that time that the bourgeoisie was actively anti-Christian.

When are you talking about? Christian fundamentalism was invented in the 1920s, as part of the bourgeois reaction to the Russian Revolution. It had a major revival in the 1980s, against as part of the bourgeois reaction to anticapitalist revolutions from Vietnam to Nicaragua.

So you still haven&#39;t even begun to show that there is any bourgeois class interest in fighting for secularism.

"Fundamentalist Islam" in the majority-Muslim countries is, in its bourgeois nationalist way, a danger to imperialism...but a danger that&#39;s in decline, and has been since 1979. The rise of al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks were signs of desperation, by a movement which has mostly failed to take power again and again.

As even Redstar&#39;s noticed, Washington is quite happy to coopt "Islamic fundamentalists", let them impose their sharia, etc....as long as they don&#39;t touch Washington&#39;s strategic and economic interests. (Iraq today&#33;)

Heck, even the Ayatollah Khomeini noticed that.

If you pay no attention to the politics of the imperialists and consider religion to be simply the few topics you are always studying and never go beyond them, then the imperialists will leave you alone. Pray as much as you like: it is your oil they are after-why should they worry about your prayers? They are after our minerals, and want to turn our country into a market for their goods. That is the reason why the puppet governments they have installed prevent us from industrializing, and instead establish only assembly plants and industry that is dependent on the outside world.source (http://www.secularislam.org/separation/isisislam.htm)

"Pray as much as you like: it is your oil they are after-why should they worry about your prayers?" He&#39;s right: the bourgeoisie cares about oil, not prayers.

You&#39;re in bad shape when even the Ayatollah Khomeini is more materialist than you are.

[LSD]

Severian, I notice that you didn&#39;t attempt to reconstruct your claims of my "contradiction". I&#39;m glad to see that you&#39;ve retracted that assertion. :)

I&#39;m less pleased, however, that you chose to ignore everything else I wrote save for my final section, especially what I wrote regarding human rights and their application to children.

You seemed to focus all your attention on my attempt at sumarizing the class situation, while failing to even address the issue of religious indoctrination and children&#39;s rights.

The issue here is not whether or not the bourgeois state is a "good" thing, we are in agreement on that issue, the question is whether or not, in the context of present socioeconomic conditions, we should tolerate the exertion of state power to suppress the exploitation of children.

Now, if you wish to contend that that is an unreasonable exercise of bourgeois-state power, please do so. But in your previous post, you failed to even touch on the issue.

I have attempted several times now to discuss this problem directly, but you seem insistant on skirting the topic. I am, therefore, forced to overtly demand that if you wish to debate the issue of banning headscarfs in school, you actually address the issue of banning headscarfs in school.

We can run endless circles presenting competing class analyses and disputing one another&#39;s interpretations of the social dynamics involved and, believe me, I am going to do my best later on in this post to demonstrate precisely why your interpretation of the situation is dead wrong ....but above all that, we have a more important question to answer.

In many ways, it doesn&#39;t matter what the "motivation" of the bourgeoisie is in proposing this law. It&#39;s academically interesting to try and figure it out, but from the perspective of one purely attempting to gauge legitimacy, it&#39;s utterly inane.

That said, there are two concerns that are particularly relevent here. The first is whether or not this law will be effective in producing progressive results, the second is notwithstanding its potential effects, does it constitute a breach of fundamental human freedoms.

I intend to address these questions individually.

Firstly, on the question of effect. Obviously, we cannot say for certain whether or not this law will lead to a decrease in religious fundamentalism. Nor can we say for certain that presenting a secular alternative to indoctrinated Muslim girls will actually lead them to seek it again on their own.

What we can say, however, is that without any secular exposure, these girls have no alternative to their virtual enslavement by Muslim "sacred law". If they are raised in an environment, as many of them are, in which their subjugation is "normal" and their inferiority accepted, they are unlikely to be able to seperate themselves from this mindset when they grow up.

Removing their head-scarf is a superficial change, I&#39;ll grant you, but it is one with great significance. Its removoal does not remove with it Islam or sexism, but it does remove at least the physical symbol of oppression. It provides for an environment in which, at least physically, there is no place for "Muslim law".

That may not be enough to save everyone, but it is certainly a good start and, as I will go into below, it does so with virtually no cost to anyone. In other words, it&#39;s a questionable gain, but it&#39;s such an important issue that even a potential gain is sufficiently important to merit the effort.

Now, in terms of the "moral" quandries, I would propose that there really aren&#39;t any.

No society on earth grants equal rights to children as it does to adults. That children are less mature and less capable of difficult decision making is practically axiomatic in contepmorary society.

Accordingly, there is nothing "new" in limiting the freedoms that children are permitted to exercise. Indeed, I would contend that the restriction of children&#39;s "expressions" is one of the more important functions of society.

Children don&#39;t only need to be protected from adults physically, they also need to be protected from adults psychologically and a major part of this is preventing them from acting due to external influence or indoctrination.

We take it as a given that a "consentual" sexual relationship is impossible between a 6 year old and a 17 year old, but we just had a self-described "girl lover" join this site who would claim something entirely different.

Does that mean that if he, or someone like him, were to successfuly convince a 6 year old to engage in sexual intercourse that this action should be allowed under the guise of "expression"?

If not, why not? By what right to we declare that sex is not a form of expression? And if the argument is about "harm", then do not individuals have the right to subject themselves to harm if they choose?

You see the real problem in this scenario is not consent, but capacity, Consent was given by our hypothetical girl. She "wanted" to be penetrated by our equally hypothetical pedophile. We still frown on their coupling, however, because we recognize that she lacked the psychological capacity to truly legitimate that consent.

The same is true of, say, genital mutilation. Earlier in this thread, you claimed that genital mutilation was "not an issue of expression". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Surely if tatoos and body art constitute expression, so can surgery. The removal or disfigurement of ones clitoris is very possibly an "expression". It can symbolize ones "devotion" to ones future husband, a desire to refrain from worldy pleasures, a desire to adhere to Islamic law; it can signify a hundred things, all of which are "expressed" by the act of mutilation.

But does this mean that a 6 year old or even a 14 year old should be able to consent to genital mutilation? Do we hold the person who preforms the surgery blameless because his teenage victim "consented"?

Of course not.

Rather we accept that while ages of consent may be largely arbitrary, they are also essential to maintaining a safe environment for children and ensuring that they maximize their options in life.

Wearing a headscarf is not a permanent disfigurement, but it certainly a psychological scar and one that is only made deeper when it is perpetual. Preventing it from being worn while in schools is a legitimate limitation to place on teenage girls and is not an undue breach of their rights.

If they have the right to "absolute free expression", then they must have the right to it in all things. You cannot have free access to headscarfs without free access to genital mutilations ...and cosmetic surgeries ...and drugs ...and suicide.

Once you accept the premise that children&#39;s "expressions" can be limited for their own safety, then the only question is where do you draw the line. You, clearly, do not see headscarfs as nescessary of suppression, although I suspect you do genital mutilation or sexual intercourse.

Either way, though, the "moral" issue is nonexistant.

Insofar as the fact that it&#39;s the bourgeois state doing the acting, yeah, it sucks and I don&#39;t like it either. If I had it my way, there wouldn&#39;t be a bourgeois state, but we both know that I don&#39;t have it anything approaching my way.

Society has a basic need to protect its children. In contemporary society that means bourgeois legalism and state action. It isn&#39;t pretty, but as long as we live in this society, it&#39;s the best we&#39;ve got.


No. I&#39;m not for the bosses&#39; state banning fascists, either.

I&#39;m quite glad to hear that. I was actually speaking, though, of censorship in a post-revolutionary society.

It&#39;s completely unrelated to the topic at hand, of course, but I&#39;m curious now, what&#39;s your opinion on free speech under communism? Would you allow fascists and other reactionary types to express themselves? Will the "bourgeois-democratic" rights that you&#39;ve heralded throughout this thread still apply?


A revolutionary concept of the interests of the working class cannot be narrow or limited to what "directly involves" us. The working class can only emancipate ourselves by smashing every kind of exploitation and oppression

Including religious.

Again, I am not contending that this is a "perfect" solution nor am I denying that a fair bit of coercion is involved. But the alternative here is not a lack of coercion, it&#39;s the toleration of coercion because its being done by parents.

When the state prevents the KKK from burning a cross on a black person&#39;s lawn, that is also an excersize of state coercion. But it is a legitimate one, given the circumstances.

And insofar as the role of the working class, not everything is about class.

Your paradigm that "unless the workers fought for it, it isn&#39;t worthy" is utter rubbish. There was no "working class struggle" to ban female circumsision or criminalize child abuse, it&#39;s just a matter of basic protections.

The same is true in this instance.


and in alliance with all the oppressed and exploited.

Including Nazis? They will, after all, quite willingly detail how they are routinely "oppressed" by the bourgeois state.

I don&#39;t know about the exact situation in other countries, but I can tell you that in Canada, people are routinely convicted for hate-speech. And, just recently in Austria, David Irving, holocaust denier, was sentence to three years for statements made in the late 1980s.

Were his rights violated? I would say yes, but this does not mean that we should "ally" with nazis in any form.

Sometimes the thing being oppressed is worse than the thing doing the oppression. Such was certainly the case during much of the time following the Russian revolution.

As you well know, I am no fan of Lenin or the Bolsheviks, but I freely admit that the white army and likeminded groups were deeply reactionary and dangerous. Lenin&#39;s suppression of rightists and counterrevolutionaries, which I&#39;m sure you support, was an example in which, for the moment at least, the oppressor was more deserving of support than the oppressed.

Now, I am not propsing that the French state is at all comparable with the ascendent Bolsheviks, but the principle remains. While we should stand-up against oppression, we should not confuse opposition for "alliances".

Like you, I oppose censorship and coercive restriction of expression, but I make no "alliances" with fascists, Nazis, or racists.

I also make none with religious fanatics.

I oppose any attempt to prevent a free individual from expressing herself, even if that expression is of a religious nature. I believe that the right to freedom supercedes my opinion of the idea being expressed. But I myself have that same right of expression and I intend to use it profusely to critisize that which I feel deserves critisism.

It it also worth noting, again, that this is not a generic "freedom of expression" issue, this is a question of children and, again, the limitation of children&#39;s rights is routine, especially under these circumstances.

You speak about "allying" with the oppressed. Well, these girls are the oppressed. Their "religion" and their "culture" is enslaving them, many of them are simply unaware of it.

This French law may restrict their ability to engage in their "faith", but it is a reasonable restriction.


I&#39;ll point out that again you&#39;re talking about "the religious" as if they&#39;re a class force, but they&#39;re not.

No, but they are certainly a social one.


I can and do, and have successfully denied that it is "functionaly atheist".

Then to what religion does it adhere?

Catholicism? Are you really contending that the French government is functionaly Catholic? That it adheres to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and accepts the Bishop of Rome as its holy head and soverign vicar of Christ?

When was the last time the French President took his marching orders from the Vatican? When was the last time the French parliament took catchechism into consideration during its deliberations?

The government of France, like nearly every government on earth, acts out of rational self-interest. It does not follow religious gospel or "spiritual faith", it works to secure its own perpetuation and the perpetuation of material privilage of those who compose and sustain it.

That does mean that, from time to time, they may make religious consesions, but these can universally be attributed to political interest and not genuine "faith".

The functionally atheist nature of the French state is simply fact. I have no earthly idea why you are attempting to deny this, but it is certainly an amaterialist approach.

If you are claiming that an advanced industrial western bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state it supports do not act out of class interest, but rather out of "faith", I have to wonder as to your Marxist convictions.

Are class interests so weak and ephemeral that an advanced bourgeoisie puts them aside in the name of "Christ", and if so, why is there no indication of this save your own assertions?

If the French government is truly functionaly Christian, why doesn&#39;t it act like it?


It is neither. It is an attempt to further the class interests of the French capitalist class. Which are in conflict, not with some imaginary class more reactionary than its own, but with the interests of the very real, very flesh-and-blood working class.

That is a remarkably oversimplistic view.

You are, however, absolutely correct in that the capitalist class is acting out of class interst. I&#39;m glad to see that your previous contention to the contrary was merely a lapse in judgement.

Clearly, the bourgeoisie acts out of rational self-interest and not "faith" and despite your bizarre claims earlier, I&#39;m fairly certain that we actually do see eye to eye on this question.

Where we disagree, however, is in whether or not, in this case, the interests of the bourgeousie diverge from those of the proletariat.

Now, it is easy to say that class enemies can "never" have parallel interests, but it is simply not true. You have already acknowledged that the bourgeoise and proletariat had a mutual interest in opposing to feudalism, but even in non-class conflict situations, there are convergent aims.

The prevention of murder, for instance, is in everyone&#39;s interest, as is the prevention of rape. Likewise, in an advanced capitalist country, both bourgeois and proletariat have material interests in preventing the introduction of markedly regressive "values".

It is benneficial to both classes to end Muslim female oppression. That is why this law is not a danger to the workers. On the contrary, it is in their long-term revolutionary interests to see religious fundamentalism dissapear as a viable social alternative.

Again, we should not endorse the bourgeois state in its actions, but we should certainly recognize this legislation as the progressive act that it is.


There&#39;s nothing anti-capitalist about anti-consumerism - in fact the bosses agree that workers consume too much. They have to drive down our "consumeristic" expectations in order to lower the value of labor-power, aka our wages.

Utter nonsense. Actual wages have dropped as consumerism has gone up. The engine of modern global capitalism is western debt spending. The bosses have no interest in decreasing purchasing. Indeed, their entire economic structure is built upon consumers purchasing beyond their means.

Religious anti-consumeristic rhetoric is largely just that, but the risk of a fundamentalist counter-culture is a real one.

I&#39;m curious, though, as to why you&#39;re even arguing this point. You&#39;ve claimed, several times now, that the bourgeoisie is acting out of class interest, but you are now proposing that Islam poses no challange to bourgeois supremecy&#33;

I must ask you, then, of what "class interest" were you previously speaking&#33;?

You do not deny that Islam is oppressive in its treatment of women, you do not deny that muslim girls are, for the most part, indoctrinated from birth. You do not even, as Newkindofsoldier initialy did, claim that the headscarf is not a badge of inferiority.

Rather you seem to be proposing that to support this act by the bourgeoisie is to support the bourgeoisie&#39;s dominance. But that would only be true if there was a threat to that dominance, something which you now deny&#33;

Considering your oft expressed dislike for "contradiction", I must say, I&#39;m quite confused&#33;


And "fundamentalist Islam" has taken power in Iran, been elected in Turkey, etc., without threatening the "continued dominance of the bourgeois class." In fact, it&#39;s advanced Iran&#39;s national capitalist development, while keeping the working class at bay.

Iran is hardly an example of a true fundamentalist state. It is an osentible theocratic republic, but we both now that in practice, the policies of the Mullahs have diverged sharply from the ideals of the &#39;79 revolution.

A far more apt example would be the former "Islamic republic" of Afghanistan, a true theocracy if one ever existed and an excellent example of what "undiluted" Wahhabism really translates to.

Certainly you would not claim that Afghanistan under the Taliban was anything approaching "developed". Interestingly enough, though, the United States actually made some inroads with the Taliban and was quite close to securing a trade agreement. If things had turned out slightly different, Afghanistan might have served as an economic colony of western capital.

The rise of a local bourgeoisie, however, was entirely stunted by the socioeconomic order maintained by the Taliban.

Similarly, a theocratic France or, more realistically, a fundamentalist society within an ostensibly secular France, would not be the "end of the world" for capitalism. As you rightly point, out, capitalism usually "finds a way". But it would certainly be bad news for the present crop of bourgeois and the interests they serve.

An "Islamic friendly" capitalist class might emerge in their place, although it would almost certainly be a more regressive formation, but the capitalist class as it exists today would not survive the Islamification of French society.

And, even beyond economics, there are social concerns to be considered. Remember the "bourgeois-democratic rights" of which we spoke earlier? The ones that the early bourgeoisie pionereed and introduced? Well Islamic "values" directly contradict these basic principles. You may feel that the bourgeois has abandoned its belief in these principles, but for the most part, that&#39;s untrue.

In most of the advanced world, including France, "bourgeois-democratic" ideals are very much in vogue. Certainly they are routinely presented as proof of western "cultural superiority", usually as a covert justification for imperialist ventures.

And despite the propagandistic nature of these displays, the protection of these rights is actually still quite ingrained in western society. Accordingly, and out of an interest to protect its "rights" (especially to property), the French bourgeoisie naturally opposes flagrantly reactionary "values".

The fundamentalist muslim treatment of women is such a "value" and, accordingly, the bourgeoise is genuinely motivated to suppress it.


When are you talking about? Christian fundamentalism was invented in the 1920s, as part of the bourgeois reaction to the Russian Revolution.

Nonsense, Protestant fundamentalism emerged in the late nineteenth century and was quite active by the 1910s at the latest. This was the period, after all, that gave us some of its more historic victories such as prohibition.

The American experiment with prohibition, by the way, is an excellent example of the social power of religion transcending class interest. Certainly one can contend that the capitalists bennefit from conservative policies and that prohibition primarily affected the working classes, but we both know that that&#39;s only half of the story.

The fact is, prohibition was brutal for business. It was a boon for organized crime, but it was a nightmare for the bourgeoisie. So much so, in fact, that they spent the next ten years trying desperately to repeal it.

Am I saying that class doesn&#39;t matter? Of course not. I&#39;m just pointing out that, especially when it comes to religion, it&#39;s not the end of the story.


"Fundamentalist Islam" in the majority-Muslim countries is, in its bourgeois nationalist way, a danger to imperialism...but a danger that&#39;s in decline, and has been since 1979.

But that&#39;s not what we&#39;re talking about, is it?

This isn&#39;t an issue of nationalist fundamentalism in "majority-Muslim countries", it&#39;s about the conflict between western "bourgeois-democratic" societies and fundamentalist immigrants.

Again, this is not a capitalist-proletarian conflict, it&#39;s a bourgeois-religious one. That is not a strictly class analysis, but it is a materialist one. The religious fundamentalists in question may not represent a class interest, but then neither do pedophiles. The state still has an interest in cracking down on them

Society has a direct interest in seeing an end to the religious subjugation of women, as does the bourgeoisie, as does the proletariat, and as do the girls involved.

That&#39;s enough for me.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:05 PM
Severian, I notice that you didn&#39;t attempt to reconstruct your claims of my "contradiction". I&#39;m glad to see that you&#39;ve retracted that assertion. :)
Failure to repeat = retraction in your book? I guess that&#39;s one reason there&#39;s been so much repetition in this thread, then. Me, I get tired of it eventually. Which is why I don&#39;t respond to every one of your points. (And it&#39;s not as if you seriously respond to half of mine.)


The government of France, like nearly every government on earth, acts out of rational self-interest. It does not follow religious gospel or "spiritual faith", it works to secure its own perpetuation and the perpetuation of material privilage of those who compose and sustain it.

By that standard, the Saudi government is "functionaly atheist." I&#39;m more mystified than ever what you mean by that phrase - if it applies to "nearly every government on earth" it seems wholly meaningless. (And heck, why "nearly"?)

Religion is a tool of the ruling class to advance its material class interests. The French bourgeoisie may not believe itself - but it coined the phrase "Religion must be kept alive for the sake of the people."

It "functionaly" and "institutionaly" promotes Christianity - and discriminates against believers in other religions - because that serves its class interests.


The prevention of murder, for instance, is in everyone&#39;s interest, as is the prevention of rape.

Really? Is it in the capitalists&#39; interests to prevent murders by their cops, and in some countries death squads? Is it in workers&#39; interests to join the bosses&#39; anti-crime campaigns?

No, every political question is a class question. We have no common interests with the bosses on any of them.


It is benneficial to both classes to end Muslim female oppression.

At the risk of being repetitious, how does that benefit the capitalists?


On the contrary, it is in their long-term revolutionary interests to see religious fundamentalism dissapear as a viable social alternative.

Conflating Islam and Islamic fundamentalism again. Islam is a religion which, in some of its interpretations, calls on women and teenage girls to wear headscarves. "Islamic fundamentalism" is a range of rightist rightist political tendencies which often calls for a legal requirement that women and girls wear headscarves (or more). That&#39;s far from the worst of what it calls for, of course.

Millions of Muslim women with the full range of political opinons wear headscarves. It does not make anyone a fundamentalist. The headscarf ban is an attack on the rights of Muslims, not of "fundamentalists."

And fundamentalists did not invent "Muslim female oppression", though they seek to perpetuate it. They did not invent the patriarchal family - though like other rightists they seek to defend it. Etc.

Nor are any of those things unique to the Muslim-majority countries, or the Muslim communities in France, though I won&#39;t deny they&#39;re more intense there.

So in going on about "fundamentalism," you&#39;re simply evading the question of what interest the French bourgeoisie has in fighting religion and women&#39;s oppression.


I&#39;m curious, though, as to why you&#39;re even arguing this point. You&#39;ve claimed, several times now, that the bourgeoisie is acting out of class interest, but you are now proposing that Islam poses no challange to bourgeois supremecy&#33;

I must ask you, then, of what "class interest" were you previously speaking&#33;?

Their class interest in maintaining the second-class status in France of workers from North Africa and the Middle East. I&#39;ve said this several times. Islamophobia is one means of doing this.


This isn&#39;t an issue of nationalist fundamentalism in "majority-Muslim countries", it&#39;s about the conflict between western "bourgeois-democratic" societies and fundamentalist immigrants, ]it&#39;s a bourgeois-[b]religious one. That is not a strictly class analysis, but it is a materialist one. The religious fundamentalists in question may not represent a class interest, but then neither do pedophiles.

If you think the bourgeoisie is progressive, I don&#39;t see how you can keep that confined within national borders. Foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy: if they can crusade for "secularism" at home, why not abroad?

But I guess that&#39;s an answer to my question: what class is the bourgeoisie fighting. No class.

Just "religious fundamentalists" floating in midair, a political tendency representing no class interest.

But nevertheless possessing such power that they&#39;ve turned time back to 1789, when the bourgeoisie was progressive&#33; A real miracle...are you sure you don&#39;t believe in God?

***

Do you know anything about the French Revolution? The big attack on the Church was the confiscation of its lands, and the big contribution of the bourgeoisie was to buy the confiscated lands&#33;

The Terror was carried out by the sansculottes and the petty-bourgeois Jacobins...against the "non-juring" priests, those who wouldn&#39;t accept the confiscation and the &#39;Civil constitution of the clergy" which was part of it.

Material interests, property, the clash of opposing classes. That&#39;s what 1789 was.

If you&#39;re going to claim that this is somehow 1789 not 2006, at least be serious about the implications.

(And incidentally, it&#39;s not 1789 even in Algeria or Morocco, let alone France...Luis Henrique gave a general picture of why not in this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43998&st=75&#entry1292002052)

[LSD]

Severian, this is beginning to become frustrating. If you want to debate this issue, debate this issue, but stop evading the critical points and focusing on the secondary stuff.

I don&#39;t know if anyone else is reading this thread, but if so, I&#39;m curious as to your opinions. Am I being unreasonable in demanding that Severian directly address the issues at hand? Am I being unfair to him?

I&#39;m going to respond to Severians points, such as they were, to the best of my ability, but I&#39;m going to also try and keep this debate on track. Severian may not want to talk about headscarfs in a headscarf debate, but I&#39;m not willing to enter his bizarro-world just yet.

At this point, I don&#39;t think that convincing Severian is a likely possibility, so I am primarily addressing my points to anyone else who might opportune this thread. Look back at the last couple of posts, read my last opening statement, think about the issues and what&#39;s important here.

This is not a proletarian issue, it&#39;s not even a class issue. Despite Severian&#39;s bizzarre insistance that "everything" is about class, when the state issues laws against having sex with children, we don&#39;t look for the "class consequences", we&#39;re just glad.

Likewise, this french school law is a protective measure for children. As with all such measures, it does restrict their freedom. But it does so to a reasonable extent for justifiably nescessary gains.

It is essential, if Muslim girls are ever to free themselves from the shackles of their enslavement, that they be exposed to secular alternatives. Newkindofsoldier finally came to realize this fact, I hope others do as well. :)


Failure to repeat = retraction in your book?

Yes.

If you make an assertion, I rebut it, and then you fail to even mention it again, it indidcates that you have conceded the point.

I guess, though, that it was hard for you to talk about the issue again as that would have meant confronting the critical points of this debate head-on. Something that you have obstinately refused to do for the last few posts.

I honestly don&#39;t know why you&#39;ve adopted this tactic, earlier in the debate you were quite willing to address the questions of free expression which underpin this debate -- I believe you refered to them as "first ammendment issues" -- but now you seem afraid to even skirt the issue.

I must say I&#39;m dissapointed, Severian. For one who claims to be able to "do polemics in [his] sleep", I expected better.


I don&#39;t respond to every one of your points.

Believe me, I&#39;ve noticed&#33; :lol:

For instance, despite my rather lengthy opening section and, admittedly assertive, insistance that you not avoid this time, you still refuse to actually debate this matter head on and talk about the real issues at hand.

If you would rather run endless circles discussion the "motivations" of this act, at least have the decency to admit it so that I understand what we&#39;re doing here. But me, I thought that we were talking about the French school headscarf law and whether or not it is a progressive move.

If so, then you need to actually be willing to talk about it&#33;


By that standard, the Saudi government is "functionaly atheist."

I&#39;d say that the Saudi government is a more complicated situation, because while it does tendto act out of rational self-perpetuation, it also does have some genuinely theocratic qualities.

I would say that Saudi Arabia is largely functionaly atheist, but not entirely. Certainly not to the degree of western countries such as France.


Religion is a tool of the ruling class to advance its material class interests.

Yes it is, but that is not all that it is. It also has an independent social role which is often incompatible with the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Again, a relevent example is the American experiment with alchohol prohibition in the early part of the twentieth century. Religion can have sweeping social impacts that are entirely, or at least mainly, detatched from issues of class.


No, every political question is a class question.

OK, so then what&#39;s the "class analysis" in female genital mutilation? Which class bennefitted from its banning?

How about child molestation? What&#39;s the "class question" in criminalizing statuatory rape?


At the risk of being repetitious, how does that benefit the capitalists?

Because it is in their interest to maintain a society that serves their purposes.

For the, hopefuly, final time, the bourgeoisie is economically and socially reliant upon a certain formation of society. Firstly, it requires an efficient and dedicated workforce to produce for it and a consumeristic and materialistic population to purchase from it. Secondly, it requires a social consiousness with respect for "bourgeois-democratic" rights to secure that its "rights" (especially to property) remain intact.

Maintaining both of these conditions is in the direct material interest of the capitalist class.


Millions of Muslim women with the full range of political opinons wear headscarves.

So what? We&#39;re not talking about "Muslim women", we&#39;re talking about Muslim girls.

Again, if a woman wants to subjugate herself and associate herself with the brutal sexism of Islam by wearing a headscarf, that is her soverign right. As, if she wanted to remove her clitoris, that would be her right as well.

But when it comes to children, to teenagers, it&#39;s a much more complicated issue. The questions of capacity and exposure are very real ones, and despite your attempt to pretend otherwise, are deeply important to placing this legislation in a propper context.


The headscarf ban is an attack on the rights of Muslims, not of "fundamentalists."

Actually it&#39;s neither, it&#39;s a restriction on the rights of children. Again, not unlike the laws preventing them from consenting to sexual contact with adults or engage in genital mutilation.

You probably don&#39;t oppose either of those "attacks" on expression though, do you?


If you think the bourgeoisie is progressive

I don&#39;t. I just think it&#39;s more progressive than the people it&#39;s fighting in this instance.


if they can crusade for "secularism" at home, why not abroad?

Because it&#39;s not in their interests abroad. They, frankly, don&#39;t give a damn about the people outside of their borders, nor to whom they choose to pray. So long as there&#39;s a way to make money off of them, their religious beliefs or lack thereof are wholly irrelevent.

Once they enter their country, however, they are in a position to affect them directly. They now represent a potential social challange to the bourgeois order and present a potentially viable alternative to the "bourgeois-democratic" paradigm on which the capitalist class&#39;s legitimacy rests.


But I guess that&#39;s an answer to my question: what class is the bourgeoisie fighting. No class.

That&#39;s correct. This is, again, not a class issue.

My reference to 1789 (I think it was actually 1781), was not meant to say that we had really been "taken back in time", it was to illustrate the historical nature of this fight.

Obviously, the government of France is not fighting feudalism or the landed Clergy and this is clearly not 1781. But the metaphor still applies.

The bourgeoisie is fighting religion because it presents a social and ideological challange to its social order. Its not "the same" as when it fought the clergy, but it&#39;s similar enough.

The capitalists didn&#39;t just fight the church because they wanted its lands, they also wanted its power. They wanted to create an "enlightened" society that produced and consumed absolutely everything it could; not one that payed tithe to the clergy and "abstained from worldly things".

There was a very real paradigm conflict present and it is that that is reemerging in this instance. No, we are not Marty McFly and we did not just drive past 85, but we are still witnessing a battle that is, fundamentally, not of our era.

This has nothing to do with the proletariat and it has nothing to do with our interests. It is, again an entirely unrelated fight.

[redstar2000]

I think your problem here, LSD, is that you and Severian are starting from a different premise.

You correctly consider religion to be fundamentally reactionary.

Severian thinks of religion as more of a kind of "minor character flaw"...something that&#39;s regrettable but not any kind of really serious, much less crippling social or individual injury.

To Severian, the "fact" that "most workers" are "religious" is excuse enough to "defend them" from "persecution".

It will be interesting in coming years to see "how far" he will carry this position...I could speculate, but we&#39;ll doubtless learn the truth soon enough. :o

Right now, he&#39;s in favor of the "right" to wear Islamic headscarves and the "right" to have paid prayer breaks for meatpackers. We&#39;ll see what other such "rights" he&#39;ll end up supporting as time passes.

There will be "additions" to his "list". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:57 AM
If you make an assertion, I rebut it, and then you fail to even mention it again, it indidcates that you have conceded the point.
That&#39;s the most ridiculous thing you&#39;ve said so far - which is saying something.

That approach would require me to respond to every troll and specious argument.

If I don&#39;t think something merits a response, I don&#39;t respond to it.

Heck, I&#39;ve made all kinds of points you haven&#39;t responded to at all; I don&#39;t imagine you&#39;ve conceded all of them.

In your latest response, for example, you completely evaded my point that Islam is not the same as "Islamic fundamentalism."

You went on and on about the French bourgoisie&#39;s supposed interest in fighting the supposed fundamentalist threat to democracy, but completely avoided my point that this has nothing to do with the headscarf ban. Wearing headscarves, or if you prefer "forcing" one&#39;s daughter to wear one, does not make anyone a fundamentalist.

You didn&#39;t respond; shall I presume you agree that the subject of fundamentalism is irrelevant?

I might point out, incidentally, that the real danger to bourgeois democracy in France is not from "Islamic fundamentalism", it&#39;s from the National Front...which trumpets a supposed Islamic threat. The bourgeoisie does prefer, when possible, to retain parliamentary democracy as the form of government most responsive to the wishes of the owners of capital. (Others allow a greater degree of independence to the state bureaucracy.) But that doesn&#39;t stop the employers from supporting fascism instead when the need to suppress the working class is acute enough - democracy is certainly not essential to their rule. All of that&#39;s a side point, of course.

I went through your latest post and there&#39;s really nothing new there; nothing which requires a new response.

****

As Redstar says, the problem is we have different fundamental assumptions.

It isn&#39;t primarily a difference over religion, however. It&#39;s a difference over class, over whether a class-based political approach is correct, and over whether the capitalists can still have some kind of progressive role today.

I&#39;ve been attempting, for the past several pages, to bring out those fundamental differences which underly our disagreements over the specific issue of the headscarf ban. I think we earlier said everything which can usefully be said on the specific question - in fact we began to repeat ourselves and go around in circles on it.

What&#39;s more, the headscarf ban is of no great significance in and of itself IMO. You don&#39;t seem to think it is either; you even say it shouldn&#39;t be supported, just not opposed. So why shouldn&#39;t we move on to bigger questions?

IMO, neither of us can convince the other about the headscarf ban because we disagree about much more fundamental political questions. So I&#39;ve been attempting to bring out those more fundamental disagreements - for the sake of clarity, not because I think either of us is going to change opinions on something so basic.

It certainly did little good for me to point out how one of your examples of supposed classless progress, the end of Jim Crow segregation, was in fact the fruit of working-class struggle; you just came back with a dozen other examples. Similarly, if I pointed out the material interests behind the Taliban (including those of the "transport mafias" and the Pakistani ISI, see Ahmed Raschid&#39;s book "Taliban" for details) what good would that do really?

I think we&#39;ve clarified our basic differences; there&#39;s really little more to say.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:58 PM
I think your problem here, LSD, is that you and Severian are starting from a different premise.

You correctly consider religion to be fundamentally reactionary.
Actually, we&#39;re starting from different premises about class society, not primarily about religion. We have the same religious opinion - there is no God.

LSD thinks the bourgeoisie can still be progressive; I know you partly agree with him when it comes to countries like Iraq. Do you agree with him that the French bourgeoisie can still be progressive? How about the U.S. bourgeoisie?

LSD thinks religion is a supra-class, independent force in history, not the expression of class interests. Do you agree with that?

Finally, I think every political issue is a class issue. What do you think?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
We have the same religious opinion - there is no God.

That&#39;s not in dispute. What&#39;s in dispute is the social role of existing organized religions.

Are they always reactionary? I think so...and you obviously do not.

Indeed, you seem to regard them as either "class neutral" or perhaps even "potentially progressive".

In any event, you think that we should "defend them" from "persecution".

I don&#39;t care what "bad things" happen to them. Anything that "hurts them" is fine with me.


Do you agree with him that the French bourgeoisie can still be progressive? How about the U.S. bourgeoisie?

Only in trivial ways now. As you know, I think the bourgeoisie in the "old" capitalist countries is growing "senile"...and can no longer correctly perceive its own class interests.

The sensible option for the French ruling class, of course, would be accelerated assimilation of the Muslim immigrants...but they can&#39;t seem to manage this. Getting rid of the headscarves is a tiny step in the right direction...but governmental subsidy of religious schools is just insane.

Over here, when U.S. courts rule that "intelligent design" is a religion and not a "science", that&#39;s a very faint echo of 1789...just barely audible, in fact.

But that seems to be all that our own ruling class can manage...meanwhile funneling increasing sums to "faith-based" initiatives that are simply more or less naked rackets. As I understand it, the most recent federal budgets actually reduce amounts appropriated for basic scientific research while increasing various forms of religious subsidies.

That says to me: ruling class in decay&#33;


LSD thinks religion is a supra-class, independent force in history, not the expression of class interests. Do you agree with that?

I don&#39;t think that&#39;s a fair summary of his views.

But whether it is or not, religions historically have almost always expressed the interests of the ruling class.

The exceptions are brief and historically trivial.

It is in the class interests of the proletariat to reject religion in all forms. And revolutionaries should support anything that assists that process.

If the bourgeois state apparatus finds it momentarily advantageous to "persecute" believers for believing, I don&#39;t see how that hurts us at all.

In fact, it helps&#33;

At this late date, I wouldn&#39;t count on such assistance from an aging bourgeoisie...but I would regard it as a "pleasant surprise" if they decide to do it.

And I would never stoop to "defending freedom of religion"...which has always meant in practice only the "freedom" to decide which tissue of lies to swallow.

I recently read that there are currently four American states in which publicly expressed "belief in a supreme being" is required to run for public office.

I expect there will be more. :o


Finally, I think every political issue is a class issue. What do you think?

I think there is class content to be found in every political issue...but rooting it out is not always easy. Political controversies in bourgeois public life are rarely framed in class terms...and we must often clear away a lot of rhetoric and obscurantist rubbish to "get at" the real class content.

Consider, for example, the attacks on women&#39;s reproductive freedom. The rhetoric is religious...but the class reality is an attack on working class women&#33;

Ruling class women have always had access to whatever anti-reproductive technology was available in their society...and will continue to have it regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.

Some portions of the ruling class evidently think that working class women have "too much freedom" and are a "de-stabilizing factor" in public life. Compelling them to have more children will "keep them at home" and, further, force them to "hold out for marriage"...thus (they imagine) stabilizing capitalist society.

As Marxists, we should always be looking for the "class roots" of public controversies...because they&#39;re always there.

Finding them is another matter entirely. People often think they&#39;ve found them...when actually they haven&#39;t.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Guardian Unlimited
Vatican accused of helping radicals by backing Islamic hour in schools

The Vatican has disconcerted Italian politicians - and some of the Roman Catholic church&#39;s most senior prelates - by endorsing a proposal by radical Muslims for a weekly "Islamic hour" in schools with a strong Muslim presence.

"If in a school there are 100 Muslim children, I don&#39;t see why their religion shouldn&#39;t be taught," said Cardinal Renato Martino, a minister in the Vatican&#39;s government, the Roman Curia.

The speaker of the Italian senate, Marcello Pera, who has launched a movement for the defence of Europe&#39;s Christian values, said the suggestion was "the diametric opposite of any kind of attempt at integration". In a note posted on the internet, he said it "tended, on the contrary, to reinforce the idea of an autonomous Muslim community inside the Italian state".

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolswor...1728715,00.html (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,,1728715,00.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:32 AM

Do you agree with him that the French bourgeoisie can still be progressive? How about the U.S. bourgeoisie?

Only in trivial ways now.
....

LSD thinks religion is a supra-class, independent force in history, not the expression of class interests. Do you agree with that?

I don&#39;t think that&#39;s a fair summary of his views.

But whether it is or not, religions historically have almost always expressed the interests of the ruling class.
.....

Finally, I think every political issue is a class issue. What do you think?

I think there is class content to be found in every political issue...but rooting it out is not always easy.
Thanks for answering. And for giving such straightforward answers. That is, you&#39;ve added a reasonable degree of qualification, but for once there&#39;s no evasion.

The ironic thing is, that you and LSD disagree all those particular questions. Except for whether the capitalists are progressive, I agree with your stated answers to all of them. (I think that "in trivial ways" qualifier is potentially significant - a great deal could be squeezed through it.)

And LSD&#39;s arguments for the headscarf ban do rest on his answers to those more fundamental questions - those are all things he&#39;s said in the course of arguing for it.

So while you might agree with him on that particular - and IMO minor - issue, you&#39;d have to put forward a different set of arguments.

_____________

Nope, it&#39;s not primarily a difference over the social role of religion either. Though I&#39;d describe it as conservative more than reactionary - the inertia of history, as Marxists have long put it.

It&#39;s a convenient cloak for a great many reactionary political forces, of course.

The primary difference is: I think workers cannot be indifferent to any kind of violation of democratic rights by the ruling class....because we&#39;re next.

You&#39;ve expressed a different view on democratic rights.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Freedom of Religion in action....


Originally posted by Daniela Relph
Arriving here is an intimidating, even shocking, experience. Anti-abortion campaigners hold up enormous and gruesome pictures of aborted foetuses. They stop every car going into the car park and try to persuade those inside to wind down their windows and take their literature.

The women going into this clinic for an abortion are screamed at. One protester, a man, yells "Don&#39;t go to those demons, don&#39;t let them take your money, don&#39;t let them kill your baby". When I ask him why he is being so aggressive, he tells me it&#39;s because America needs to know the truth: "Abortion is murder," he says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4792428.stm

I wouldn&#39;t give a shit if these bastards were ruthlessly "persecuted", and nor should anyone else.

[LSD]

LSD thinks religion is a supra-class, independent force in history, not the expression of class interests.

I said nothing of the kind. In fact I emphatically and specifically said that religion is usually a tool of the rulling class. My point, however, was that that is not all that it is.

The bourgeoisie utilize religion, but they did not invent it. Neither, for their part, did the feudal aristocracy. Religion predates class society and, accordingly, as a social force is more complex than a mere class analysis would permit.

Yes, for the most part, religion is a means of maintaining social control, but as numerous historical examples demonstrate, it can also affect the reverse.

From the Luddites, to liberation theology, to Islamic fundamentalism, religion is clearly not the exclusive domain of the bourgeoisie nor of domestic class interests.

Again, there is an alliance between the bourgeoisie and religious institutions, but it is not a perfect one and it is not an absolute one. More importantly, there are numerous religious sects which do not fall under its auspices. Many of these directly oppose the hegemony of the capitalist class and the social order it maintains.

In this particular case, we have an example in which religion is not serving the interests of the bourgeoisie. In which a specific religious force poses a threat to their conservative stability.

It does not mean that the bourgeoisie is "progressive" as a class, it just means that in this instance, they happen to be doing a progressive thing.

It doesn&#39;t happen very often, but we should not be afraid to recognize it when it does.


The ironic thing is, that you and LSD disagree all those particular questions.

I think that me and Redstar have several political disagreements, although I would hardly call them "fundamental".

Personally I think that a diversity of views is a positive thing. The more variants of revolutionary leftism this board represents, the better it&#39;s able to serve it&#39;s purpose. It&#39;s especially benneficial that the Admin team not be monolithic; that way we largely avoid allowing political biases to define board policy.


And LSD&#39;s arguments for the headscarf ban do rest on his answers to those more fundamental questions

No, actually, they don&#39;t.


The primary difference is: I think workers cannot be indifferent to any kind of violation of democratic rights by the ruling class....because we&#39;re next.

The point that I&#39;ve been trying to make since the beginning, and that you&#39;ve been consistantly evading, is that this is not a violation of "democratic rights".

Look, I agree with you that this is a "minor issue". I also, however, recognize that accordingly it is not a matter of "fundamental questions".

The class aims of the bourgeoisie and their specific motivations in passing this law are, again, potentially academically interesting, but they are not the most important issue here. Instead, it is the law itself and its consequences that we must focus on.

If you wish to make the point that this law is "anti-democratic" then you need to make that point. So far you have evaded by instead focusing all your attention on the secondary issue of motivation.

Again, neither of us likes the bourgeois state, but we cannot reject every piece of bourgeois legislation merely because it is bourgeois legislation. Rather, we must consider each one individualy and analyze whether it is helpful to us or not.

In this case, regardless of intent, this law will effect a progressive outcome. It will reduce the power of religion and offer secular exposure to millions of girls who otherwise have none.

Now, you may think that the bourgeoisie is being "racist" or "Islamophobic" in supporting this law, indeed, you may even be largely correct. As I have repeatedly explained, there is a specific class interest in suppressing this aspect of religion, but if you don&#39;t want to accept that, that&#39;s fine.

Again, I am not proposing that the "fundamentals" are at issue here. We can completely disagree on class motivation, but still discuss this particular law notwithstanding.

Limiting the rights of children is an accepted and appropriate mechanism for affecting a positive outcome for said children. Again, I point to the issue of female genital mutilation as a useful analogy.

I am not proposing that "head-scarfs" be banned unilaterally, but when it comes to children in school, mandating a secular environment is not an unreasonable infringement.

As I understand it, they&#39;re not permitted to attend school naked, either. I don&#39;t suppose you think that that that "violates" their "freedom of expression" ...do you? :unsure:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:26 AM
So far you have evaded by instead focusing all your attention on the secondary issue of motivation
Actually, I haven&#39;t said anything at all about the bosses&#39; subjective motivations. I don&#39;t know or care what they are.

Just a little example of how far you are from meaningfully responding to any of my arguments - while complaining because I haven&#39;t responded to every last one of yours.

Probably you haven&#39;t understood a single thing I&#39;ve posted in this thread. Our "frames of reference" are just too different, to borrow a phrase from Chomsky.

****

I should partially correct something from my response to Redstar, though. There is a difference in our opinions on the social role of religion - though as with everything else it flows from different attitudes on class politics.

It seemed to me that saying religion is "thoroughly reactionary" is not significantly different from the Marxist position on religion. But I forgot to ask, what does Redstar mean by "reactionary"? Probably something much different than I do.

To a Marxist, "reactionary" and "progressive" are defined in relation to the line of march of the working class. But of course Redstar - and LSD - make no use of that concept.

So Lemme suggest that "thoroughly reactionary" in this context means, effectively, evil. That&#39;s Eeee-vil.

Communist politics say: if something helps build the class-consciousness of the working class, and advance our interests, our power, our line of march towards self-liberation - then we are for it. If it does the opposite - we are against it. See section II of the Communist Manifesto.

Left politics, in contrast, says: we are against X, and for anything which is against X. Most leftists don&#39;t know what they&#39;re for - they may give some lip service to some revolutionary "ultimate goal" but it doesn&#39;t guide their day-to-day actions. Some version of lesser-evillism guides them - they&#39;re defined by what they&#39;re against, not what they&#39;re for.

Usually, today, X = U.S. imperialism; anything which is against U.S. imperialism is supported.

But for LSD and Redstar, sometimes X = religion. Anything against religion is good, including repressive action by the bourgeois state.

LSD&#39;s arguments are mostly emotional arguments, aimed at getting people so whipped up against Islam that they will forget any other consideration. Islam is conflated with "Islamic fundamentalism" (Aka Islamism, "political Islam".) He says "force" girls to wear a headscarf when he means "indoctrinate" them to , which in turn means the same as "bring up to believe" they should...but that has a different connotation, emotionally.

He equates a religious upbringing with child abuse, and compares a piece of cloth to genital mutilation. The whole arsenal of demonization, tending to make rational thought impossible.

Now, I&#39;m not so interested in defending Islam&#39;s reputation that I&#39;m going to wade through all that and separate truth from exaggeration.

But I am going to remember all the other considerations I&#39;m supposed to forget, considering that they include some of the most basic principles of communism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
To a Marxist, "reactionary" and "progressive" are defined in relation to the line of march of the working class. But of course Redstar - and LSD - make no use of that concept.

So the term has no meaning prior to 1848? That would seem to be a rather narrow-minded "Marxist".

The term reactionary is one that I apply in connection with the "arrow of time". Means of production, classes, the struggle between them, the "ideas" that they generate as a consequence, etc., can be observed to change with the passage of time.

Those who struggle "with" the direction of history, I will call "progressive"; and those who struggle "against" that direction, I will call "reactionary".

In very early times, with the rise of the first class societies, religion was "progressive"...its social role was to provide "cosmic justification" for the escape from savagery.

In both China and the Near East, the first systematic studies of the night skies were religiously motivated. Astrology was once the only "astronomy" we had.

By 600BCE or so, the first Greek philosophers began to consider the idea that things happened in the world for reasons other than "the will of the gods".

At that point, religion begins to become reactionary.

Afterwards, religion could only be "progressive" when it promoted the establishment of a more advanced form of class society. The 16th century Protestant Reformation was the "last gasp" of "progressive religion"...providing "cosmic justification" for capitalism.

Since then, it&#39;s been reactionary all the way&#33; By the 19th century, religion can be seen to "line up" consistently with reactionary political and social forces.

The very concept of communism as a conscious effort by humans to rationally shape the society in which they live necessarily implies the end of all forms of superstition.

And the seriously religious know this&#33; They have been intransigent enemies of communism from the beginning&#33;

The failure of communists to recognize this has been a big weakness of our movement. But I think the "tide is turning" on this issue in the "old" capitalist countries...as the extremely reactionary social role of religion becomes more and more undeniable.

There are still too many "communists" who think religion "doesn&#39;t really matter" and even a few who think it "could still be progressive"...but I think as this century passes, they will find themselves increasingly "on the defensive". The outrages (and attempted outrages) perpetuated by the religious will likely increase in frequency and horror as they desperately strive to preserve their reactionary paradigms against relentless secular attack.

So, if you like, religion is indeed "eeee-vil"...anything that damages it in any way helps us&#33;


Usually, today, X = U.S. imperialism; anything which is against U.S. imperialism is supported.

Yep, that&#39;s the "biggie" in our historical epoch. A century from now, it will likely be different. Some other imperialist country (China?) may become the world&#39;s "fortress of reaction" and attention will focus then on arousing world-wide resistance to its imperial ambitions.

It always helps us to pay careful attention to the main enemy at any given time.


[LSD] equates a religious upbringing with child abuse, and compares a piece of cloth to genital mutilation. The whole arsenal of demonization, tending to make rational thought impossible.

Pounding superstitious crap into a defenseless kid&#39;s head is child abuse&#33; And the "piece of cloth" stems from the same motives as genital mutilation...both are intended to subordinate females.

That&#39;s "eeee-vil"...or, more precisely, reactionary&#33;

You may not consider these to be "rational conclusions"...but I do.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[LSD]

Actually, I haven&#39;t said anything at all about the bosses&#39; subjective motivations. I don&#39;t know or care what they are.

Actually, yes you have.

You&#39;ve spoken at length about how this law is "islamophobic" and anti-immigrant and that it only passed because of the racism of the French legislature.

You&#39;ve also made a big deal about how the bourgeoisie is bennefitted by this law and, accordingly, it "must" be harmful to the workers. You haven&#39;t actually given any evidence in support of that contention, but you&#39;ve been rather insistant that we should take your monochromatic assertion as fact.

We may have different "frames of reference", but the only reason we are failing to have a fruitful discussion here is because you keep evading the important issues.

If you don&#39;t "know or care" what the class motivations of this legislation are then let&#39;s move the fuck on.

For instance, you have accused this law of being "anti-democratic" and "anti-worker". How about you begin proving these assertions?

I have certainly posted enough about why child protection does not contravene basic democratic principles, but you have yet to even respond. If the issue here is that this law is "oppressive" then how about you rebut my arguments and prove your case&#33;

I certainly have no desire to discuss motivations any further. It was you, after all, that first ventured us onto this diversion. I would be more than pleased to return to the relevent topic at hand.

But then, in your words, that wouldn&#39;t be "fundamental" enough for you, would it? <_<

Well, I&#39;m not going to respost everything I&#39;ve written and I suppose you can go on ignoring it if you want. While I&#39;m not suggesting that my argument is particularly clever or special, I am insistant that if you get into a debate, you should at least pay the common courtesy of playing fair.

If this discussion is "beneath" you, fine, just be upfront about it from the beginning. Let someone less picky "do the job" instead.


But for LSD and Redstar, sometimes X = religion. Anything against religion is good, including repressive action by the bourgeois state.

Wow, talk about "not [understanding] a single thing I&#39;ve posted"&#33; :lol:

Please point out where I said that "anything" against religion is "good". In point of fact I&#39;ve made it excessively clear that I do not support oppressive legislation by the bourgeois state, not even when it&#39;s against religion.

If you&#39;d care to look through my posts in this thread, you&#39;d see that I&#39;ve repeatedly pointed out my objection to any attempt at restricting the atire of adult women, even religious ones.

I believe that granting such power to the government is simply too dangerous.

When it comes to children in school, however, it&#39;s a different equation. You do love calling this legislation "repressive action", but you have still not actually engaged on this issue and pointed out how it&#39;s "repressive"&#33;

Limitations on children are standard in modern society, more than that, they are undeniably nescessary.

You&#39;ve made it clear, although circumspectly, that you support the ban on female genital mutilation of children, well what is that if not a limitation on children&#39;s "expression"?

I made this point several posts back actually but, typically, you failed to address it.

I&#39;m not sure if there&#39;s even a point in making this post as you will probably respond with some snide comment about our "frames of reference", but the simple truth here is that, whether you&#39;ve liked my responses or not, I&#39;ve responded ...you heven&#39;t.

If you want to make the argument that this particular french law is an undue restriction on the rights of French girls, you need to provide reasoned argumentation.

Anything elese is meaningless.


He equates a religious upbringing with child abuse, and compares a piece of cloth to genital mutilation.

You&#39;re damn right I do&#33; :angry:

The latter might be more physically perminant, but both acts of oppression stem from the same motivation and both are harmful to the child.

Tell me, if in 20 years they develop a way to fully reverse genital mutilation, would that make it alright for 6 year olds to have their clitorises removed? If there were no risk of permanent physical damage, would children have the "right" to "consent" to mulilation?

Or, parhaps, are the psychological and sociological scars often more lasting that the physical ones? Is genital mutilation just about surgery or is it about subjugation?

Well, when it comes right down to it, headscarfs are nothing more than a less painful version of female genital mutilation. It is an attempt to effect the same outcome; the societal oppression of women. To claim that force is justified in stopping one but not the other is ludicrous. Oppression worn on the head is just as enslaving as oppression between the legs.

And, furthermore, for you to claim that, with children, there is a difference between "indoctrination" and force" is absolute nonsense.

There&#39;s currently a thread in Discrimination on pedophilia. Would you like to post in it to tell us all how a 6 year old who "consents" to being penetrated wasn&#39;t actually violated after all?

When it comes to children who have been raised in an environment of subjugation, "force" is no longer required to keep them down. Being inferior is all they&#39;ve ever known. In these cases it is nescessary to expose these children to secular alternatives so that, at the very least, they experience a non-religious environment and realize that their oppression is only cultural and not universal.

Again, it isn&#39;t an "answer" to religious oppression, but it&#39;s useful, it&#39;s progressive, and it&#39;s benneficial.

I&#39;m still waiting you you to prove otherwise.