I find myself strangely reluctant to call this a Bad Thing. I'm not a gung-ho libertarian by any stretch, but I do think personal freedom is very important. However, I come from Canada, where multiculturalism is a way of life; there certainly isn't one distinctive Canadian culture, eh.
But anyway. If the ban wasn't so obviously targeted at France's Muslim minority, I might not even oppose it at all given France's overtly secular nature.
I dunno. I find it hard to form a cohesive opinion on the issue given that I'm not French and can't say that I fully grasp French culture and what it means to be French. But while I can't say that I favour the ban, I can't say that I oppose it either.
Which is typically Canadian, all wishy-washy.
[ February 10, 2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Now if only they would ban pants that people wear down on their butt crack.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
They should just ban you. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Aw, man.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If you wear your pants down around your ankles, Twinky, I'm sorry to have offended you. I hope they let you in. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: "What is at issue here is the clear affirmation that public school is a place for learning and not for militant activity or proselytism," Assembly Speaker Jean-Louis Debre said.
Sounds good in theory.
quote: The issue goes to the heart of France's self-image as a secular state that keeps faith out of state schools and services to ensure no religion dominates or suffers discrimination.
Wrong. It just means that all religions (in theory) will suffer equal discrimination. This law absolutely discriminates against the religious, and it is laughable to claim otherwise.
quote: Before the vote, Education Minister Luc Ferry said France had witnessed a "spectacular rise in racism and anti-Semitism in the last three years" and the ban would help to keep classes from dividing up into "militant religious communities."
Excellent goal. I approve of trying to reduce both racism and anti-Semitism. But anyone who thinks this law will accomplish that is in serious denial. This law will almost certainly make things WORSE for religious minorities -- Jew and Muslim alike.
quote: In Washington, 47 members of the United States Congress protested to the French ambassador on Monday in a letter saying: "The proposed law threatens the religious rights of French children by forcing them to choose between school and religious practices that are central to their core values."
Exactly.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah. It makes religious people hide their religion. Just like non-religious people leave their individual signifiers at home, religious people have to do it, too. They're not special and religious symbols are no more important than other symbols to the non-religious.
It's too bad everyone just can't wear what they want to, but then chaos would reign, wouldn't it?
When major segments of the religious community start standing up for other people to express themselves, even in ways that offend the religious community, then I'll pay attention. Otherwise, I have no sympathy for people who are upset about something only when it effects them.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Excellent goal. I approve of trying to reduce both racism and anti-Semitism. But anyone who thinks this law will accomplish that is in serious denial. This law will almost certainly make things WORSE for religious minorities -- Jew and Muslim alike.
I agree totally. Let me try to summarize their logic:
"We expect, after a public education that instructs its students that the "religious symbols" - most especially those of Muslims and Jews - are inappropriate, for these same students to go out and accept religious diversity in their workplace and community."
Do I have that right? I'm missing something essential in how this is supposed to work. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Storm, Muslim head scarves and Jewish skullcaps are not primarily symbols of religious affiliation. They are required to fulfill religious law. Even if it were simply a question of "hiding their religion," why would that be a good thing?
And I seriously doubt that "non-religious signifiers" (could you possibly elaborate on what you mean by that?) are in any way restricted.
And I was very unhappy and disturbed about this law when I first heard about it, when I was told that ONLY Muslim head scarves would be banned.
Be careful. Your bias is showing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Religious law, shmeligious law.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Pants around ankles is all the rage!
...er...
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I don't see how the proposed solution relates at all to the purported problem. Is it likely that the Muslim girls who wear the scarves are the ones making the anti-jewish comments? Maybe in some cases, but it is much more likely the boys, I think. Will making them remove their skull caps and scarves make it any harder to identify these folks as jews or muslims? I find it hard to believe that it will unless these schools all have more than 4000 students.
Their solution seems a bit like a decision meant to keep cats and dogs from fighting by shaving all the cats.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
In other words, Rivka, religious people can dictate what other people can say or wear in the name of religion(that offends me!), but in the name of religion, other people must allow the religious to do what they want to do?
Just who is biased here? You're biased towards religious people. Does that make you bad?
I'm not biased for or against religious people. I just like to see certain groups get hoist on the petard they've been ramming down everyone else's throats for years.
Like I say, when religious people start advocating for the ability of everyone to do things, even things that offend them, then I'll listen. Saying 'It's a religious law' carries no weight with me and means nothing else other than 'it's really important to me.'
[ February 10, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
And what if the state protects the practice of religion? Should the argument "It's a religious law" have any weight then?
Actually, I am not in favor of religious people imposing standards of dress on society at large either. I think religious groups have the right to require visitors to a church (for example) to follow certain standards, but not expect those standards to apply everywhere.
I never said your bias was bad. Simply that it existed, and was dictating your stance. (A rather punitive and vengeful one, it seems to me.) But claiming that you have no such bias . . . well, I guess the French government isn't alone in their denial. Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
So, what do you think the religious Muslim girls will do? Their choice is limited to:
1) not wear scarfs, thus disobeying their religion
2) not go to school, thus disobeying the secular law
3) go to private schools, which not everyone can afford.
I don't like these options.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"We expect, after a public education that instructs its students that the "religious symbols" - most especially those of Muslims and Jews - are inappropriate, for these same students to go out and accept religious diversity in their workplace and community."
Actually, I think their argument would have to go something like this:
"There wouldn't be anti-semitism if they just weren't so Jewish." I honestly can't think of any other reasoning that leads from "don't wear visible symbols of your faith" to "that way people won't be bigoted towards you."
Scary stuff to me. Much scarier than the ban on its face is the attitudes underlying it that they don't even seem to be trying to hide.
Oh, and Storm, could you please point out where "religious people ... dictate what other people can say or wear in the name of religion." Seems to me, at least in American case law, this is patently not true.
I'm not saying some religious people haven't tried. But where have they succeeded?
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dagonee, do you know how many conversations I've had with people on this board, where the argument has basically come down to 'community standards'? A lot. Whether it's a Jackson nipple, vulgarity, some guy going to a strip club on his own time, a clerk selling an adult comic book close to a school, all these things were protected parrot-like with the reasoning of 'community standards'--not because it's demonstrably harmful in some fashion, but strictly because they violated community standards. It's the same thing now. All these people getting upset over the enforcement of a uniform code of dress because it now involves religion, but fiercely protect the abilility of social conservatives to dictate what can and can't be worn or said in society are being a bit hypocritical. At the very least, I don't understand why people are noticing the fact that the French are making their students wear uniforms just now when it effects religious people. Do they get upset when students are forced to where uniforms in general? I'm guessing not, because somehow the personal, non-religious choice is somehow inferior to the choice of the religious that corresponds to a religious law.
Further, to address Kama's point, let me point out that a lot of people like to bring up consequences on this board. 'That guy knew the consequences when he broke the law.' Well, now these people will have a choice of whether to break the law or not. If they break it, they know the consequences, they can suffer for it. Their choice, of wearing what is within the bounds of the law, or not, is faced by every single person in France and the world over. We all make it, and I guess they can, too. Everyone else learns to be a nice little state subject, they can, too, or suffer the consequences. The fact that they are affiliated with a religious tribe shouldn't give them special privileges.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
That really bothers me. I know several women who wear veils and if they were forced not to, they would quit that school before expulsion even happened. I wonder how long this will last. I hope not indefinitely.
quote: The ban would also make clear pupils must follow the full official curriculum and cannot object to or skip classes for religious reasons, he said.
"Instructor, can I have tomorrow off of school? It's Christmas!" "No, you know the rules" "*cough*I don't feel good, I'll bring a doctors note before the end of the day."
That's what I would do.
quote: They have also reported that Muslim pupils sometimes repeat anti-Semitic themes they see on Arabic satellite television. Jewish families are increasingly switching their children from state schools to private Jewish schools to avoid harassment.
I don't think Jews will be the only ones doing this. I imagine there will be a large surplus in the private school industry in France.
quote: In Washington, 47 members of the United States Congress protested to the French ambassador on Monday in a letter saying: "The proposed law threatens the religious rights of French children by forcing them to choose between school and religious practices that are central to their core values."
Finally we get something right.
[ February 10, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But the law is targeted at them because of their religion.
You don't see anything wrong with asking someone to choose between the demands of religious conscience and the benefit of a state-provided education?
And you're really not bothered by the implied "people will stop oppressing people for being different if people just stop acting different" theme running through some of those comments?
If this is just a repeated attempt to attack positions taken in other arguments by other people, let me know and I'll stop responding to you in this thread. If you really think the head-scarf ban is a good idea let me know and I'll continue discussing it. I just don't want to waste my time.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'm curious as to when wearing yarmulkes became a part of Jewish tradition, rivka. From what I've run across... ...in America, the sects which require such wear didn't even exist until they arose in direct (often copycat) response to the 19thCentury American Christian evangelical/charismatic/fundamentalist movement. "European-origin" American Jewish sects which wear yarmulkes were actually converts to American charismatic/fundamentalist Jewish missionaries who returned to Europe, with the converts in turn emigrating to America. So European yarmulke-wearers would be equivalent to European SeventhDayAdventists, Jehova'sWitnesses, Pentacostalists, Mormons, etc.
And please, I honestly do not know the above to be factual. My curiosity is equally honest, and the above "conclusion" came about while personally (ie not for classwork, nor with expert advisors) investigating origins of various religions and religious sects, ala: Sikhs were originally pure pacifists. Their adoption of a militaristic stance -- and the group-identity requirement for men to wear long hair under a turban, to grow a beard, and to carry a fighting knife to protect Sikhs -- was in direct response to an attempt at total genocide which also killed their primary religious teacher. Before the particular Muslim leader who ordered the genocide, Sikhs were considered to be part of the 'People of the Book', and thus protected from religious persecution under Muslim law.
[ February 10, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Heck, wearing veils and even headdresses is only mandated in the Qur'an for the wives of the Prophet, not for everyone else.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The custom is adopted from Persian(Iran) Zoroasterism and some preMuslim animist Arab/NorthAfrican desert tribes. Considering that Muslims exterminated Zoroasterism, animism, and the other customs associated with them -- at least to the same extent that Christians exterminated Mithraism, Manichaeism, etc -- it's very odd that burkas and veils somehow became de rigeur fashion-wise.
[ February 10, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: ...in America, the sects that require such wear didn't even exist until they arose in direct (often copycat) response to the 19thCentury American Christian evangelical/charismatic/fundamentalist movement.
aspectre, since Orthodoxy and the sub-groups thereof existed (in Europe!) long before the 1800s, that statement makes no sense to me. Which "sect" precisely are you claiming arose in response to Christian evangelicals?
quote: It is an ancient practice for Jews to cover their heads during prayer. This probably derives from the fact that in Eastern cultures, it is a sign of respect to cover the head (the custom in Western cultures is the opposite: it is a sign of respect to remove one's hat). Thus, by covering the head during prayer, one showed respect for G-d. In addition, in ancient Rome, servants were required to cover their heads while free men did not; thus, Jews covered their heads to show that they were servants of G-d. In medieval times, Jews covered their heads as a reminder that G-d is always above them.
quote: The Talmud says: "Rabbi Huna the son of Rabbi Joshua never walked 4 cubits (2 meters) with his head uncovered. He explained: 'Because the Divine Presence is always over my head.'" (Talmud - Kiddushin 32a)
Posted by Mephistopheles (Member # 3250) on :
Arguing from a purely ideological standpoint I would oppose the ban, however things are more complex than that.
[ February 10, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Mephistopheles ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Rivka your quote and stab technique in your lenghty post was very well appreciated from these areas of the world.
IE My brain.
Rhaegar
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In other words, Rivka, religious people can dictate what other people can say or wear in the name of religion(that offends me!), but in the name of religion, other people must allow the religious to do what they want to do?
Just who is biased here? You're biased towards religious people. Does that make you bad?
I'm not biased for or against religious people. I just like to see certain groups get hoist on the petard they've been ramming down everyone else's throats for years.
Like I say, when religious people start advocating for the ability of everyone to do things, even things that offend them, then I'll listen. Saying 'It's a religious law' carries no weight with me and means nothing else other than 'it's really important to me.'
Well, at least you're honest in your enjoyment of seeing religious people get screwed. Wait, no you're not. First you say you're not biased against them, then express pleasure when a law penalizes them. I'm not going to pretend your bias isn't bad, Storm Saxon.
What exactly have "religious people' been shoving down everyone's throats with regards to what they are and aren't to wear? The only ones that come to my mind are things like profanity, nudity, so called "racy clothing"...but those things aren't just opposed by the religious anyway, and not always for religious reasons. To use your phrase, what things that are "very important to you" have religious people exclusively prevented you from doing?
You're just as bad as what you're criticizing. You don't give a damn because it ain't happening to you, and that's exactly why you don't care it's happening to them.
[ February 10, 2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Sorry Riv, both Quote and stab posts.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I was aware that leaders of religious services have tended to wear headress for a long, long time; probably well into prehistory. So it would be unsurprising to find that Cohens and rabbis always wore yarmulkes. My curiosity, rivka, is about extending the headress requirement to the laity.
While claiming to be the direct line of Jewish faith, my studies indicated that the current Orthodox branch originated in a relatively recent schism similar to that of the Baptists (who claim to be the direct line of Christianity) branching off from the Presbyterians*. The various UltraOrthodox lines in particular appeared to be the result of American evangelicalism -- either in opposition to AmericanChristian evangelism or more directly adopted from AmericanJewish evangelists -- including American evangelism carried overseas.
Problem with researching religious origins is that nearly every sect claims to be the mainline of their faith -- and that their customs/rites/beliefs most truthfully reflect the religous root -- and that it was the other which branched off. And few of the sects seem to be particularly uncomfortable about generating massive amounts of disinformation about origins, theirs or others.
*I think -- memories from a long time ago -- it was the Presbyterians. Irrespective of the actual who, they decided that congregational leadership should be required to have a formal-college religious education, and those who disagreed with that requirement became the Baptists.
[ February 10, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Well, at least you're honest in your enjoyment of seeing religious people get screwed. Wait, no you're not. First you say you're not biased against them, then express pleasure when a law penalizes them. I'm not going to pretend your bias isn't bad, Storm Saxon.
Yeah, yeah. Already responded to it.
quote: What exactly have "religious people' been shoving down everyone's throats with regards to what they are and aren't to wear? The only ones that come to my mind are things like profanity, nudity, so called "racy clothing"...but those things aren't just opposed by the religious anyway, and not always for religious reasons. To use your phrase, what things that are "very important to you" have religious people exclusively prevented you from doing?
Point of my posts is that social conservatives, who are often 'religious', often favor social censure of what people can wear, say, and do. I never meant to say that it was religous people exclusively. I admit that my phrasing was sloppy. Perhaps 'social conservatives' might be more explicit. In any case, however I phrased it, it does not matter to my overall argument, that people should be free to express themselves as they wish without directly endangering others, regardless of community standards, and that showing favoritism to religious people when community standards go against them is hypocritical.
As far as whether or not it's effected me directly, of course it has. What an absurd question. Just as its effecting the Jews and Muslims. It effects everyone. Is social censure on what I can wear and say and see not as important as what Jews and Muslims can wear and say and see? Why should religious personal preferences carry more weight than just plain, old personal preferences?
quote: You're just as bad as what you're criticizing. You don't give a damn because it ain't happening to you, and that's exactly why you don't care it's happening to them.
Naw. I care. I'm just allowing myself a little petty grim satisfaction. Quit ignoring everything I wrote. Whole point is that I want social religious conservatives/social conservatives, whatever, to remember this the next time they start writing their congressthings about obscenity and indecency. I mean, I doubt they will,as I'm sure you won't. Nobody here is actually responding to what I've written and instead is focusing on whether or not I'm religiously biased. I guess it's easier to argue about that than tackle the subjects that I've raised.
I'm kind of running out of patience here. So, just to be clear about what I will respond to for the rest of this thread, here is a question: what is the difference between the censure of Jackson's nipple and the censure of Muslim headscarves? I will respond to answers to it and it only. If people want to think I am religiously biased, so be it. It's a dead subject to me.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Nobody here is actually responding to what I've written and instead is focusing on whether or not I'm religiously biased.
What have you said that hasn't been addressed?
Oh, and the reason why Rakeesh was focused on whether or not you're religiously biased is because your posts drip of that bias. He was just simply addressing it. That doesn't mean he's ignoring or sidestepping.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Sorry Riv, both Quote and stab posts.
Rhaegar, I don't know what that means, and if you approved or are being sarcastic.
Mephistopheles, I agree, the situation for Jews in France is not good. But how will this law improves things? It seems far more likely to make things worse.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, Storm, I responded to what you were saying. You ignored it. So I'll ask again: do you really think it is a good idea to force French children to choose between availing themselves of public school and acting in accord with their religiouos beliefs? Yes or no.
quote:what is the difference between the censure of Jackson's nipple and the censure of Muslim headscarves?
Well, first of all Janet and Justin planned this without telling the producer of the show nor the broadcaster of the show. It amounts to violation of the spirit if not letter of their contracts and is ethically fraudulent.
Second, the "censure" of Janet is social disapproval. If people want to socially disapprove of people wearing headscarves, more power to them. Boorish behavior is certainly allowed, as is a personal determination of what constitutes boorish behavior. The muslim headscarve ban (and its effects on Jews, Christians, Sikhs, and lots of others caught up in it) is the coercive force of the state being used to compel conformity in a discriminatory fashion.
Third, last time I checked, the right to manifest religious beliefs publicly is important enough to include in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I looked twice but failed to find the article that guarantees the right to bare a nipple on national television.
Can you really not see the difference between actions and expressions based on an individual's conscience and those based on a desire to titilate?
Dagonee Edit: changed "bear a nipple" to "bare a nipple." Hated to do it because the first is just funny...
[ February 10, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I think those are all very good questions you need to answer Storm, before you say "people are concentrating on my bias and ignoring the points I bring up."
[ February 10, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Actually, Storm, I responded to what you were saying. You ignored it. So I'll ask again: do you really think it is a good idea to force French children to choose between availing themselves of public school and acting in accord with their religiouos beliefs? Yes or no.
It's not a straight yes or no answer. To be brief, I don't think the state should force anyone to choose between their personal beliefs and public school. However, if the state is going to mandate a dress code, it should do so without regard to a person's religion.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- what is the difference between the censure of Jackson's nipple and the censure of Muslim headscarves? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, first of all Janet and Justin planned this without telling the producer of the show nor the broadcaster of the show. It amounts to violation of the spirit if not letter of their contracts and is ethically fraudulent.
O.K. You know the general question I am asking and I think are being deliberately obtuse in arrowing in on the specifics that don't speak to the general question. The discussion isn't about whether or not Jackson/Justin were fraudulent. If it were done under contract, people still would have been writing their congresspeople and the FCC still would be jumping down CBS' throat.
quote: Second, the "censure" of Janet is social disapproval. If people want to socially disapprove of people wearing headscarves, more power to them. Boorish behavior is certainly allowed, as is a personal determination of what constitutes boorish behavior. The muslim headscarve ban (and its effects on Jews, Christians, Sikhs, and lots of others caught up in it) is the coercive force of the state being used to compel conformity in a discriminatory fashion.
All social censure is discriminatory towards only the people engaging in that behavior. Also, the censure goes beyond social disapproval to the fines that I mentioned, to the point that a station that allows people to engage in that behavior can lose their broadcast license. It also goes beyond social censure to where groups of people were strong-arming CBS to never show that kind of thing again lest they be boycotted, to writing their congressthings to increase pressure on stations so that kind of display will never happen again.
Also, Jackson probably could have been arrested for lewd and lascivious, moral turpitude, etc, a la Jim Morrison.
quote:
Third, last time I checked, the right to manifest religious beliefs publicly is important enough to include in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I looked twice but failed to find the article that guarantees the right to bear a nipple on national television.
Appeal to authority.
quote: Can you really not see the difference between actions and expressions based on an individual's conscience and those based on a desire to titilate?
No. I can't. Beyond the motivation behind the actions, the effect on society is either zero or positive or bad depending on how the action is carried out.
Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, the state bans not only displays meant to titillate but any displays of nudity or what is deemed 'obscene'. Titillation is only part of what goes into what defines obscenity. In reality, it's just community standards. As we saw in the previous thread, since the majority of French people approve of the ban, the censure on head scarves is social and doesn't meet with community standards. The headscarves are obscene in school.
In actuality, not even a majority of people have to disapprove of something for it to be labeled obscene. In the case of the Jackson nipple, I haven't seen any surveys that show a majority of people disapprove of her nipple. It's pretty much down to who screams the loudest.
[ February 10, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Appeal to authority.
That law does not apply because it isn't illegal to do that. The only thing they appealed to was CBS's authority.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pardon? I'm saying that bit didn't contain any information beyond of an appeal to authority in the form of DHR.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, if the state is going to mandate a dress code, it should do so without regard to a person's religion.
Which it is not doing in this case.
quote:O.K. You know the general question I am asking and I think are being deliberately obtuse in arrowing in on the specifics that don't speak to the general question.
Well, you were very insistent that only that specific question be answered, and I wanted to be complete.
quote:Appeal to authority.
Cheap misues of fallacy.
Appeals to authority are not automatically dismissible, especially when they represent the culmination of a debate very similar to the one at hand. When the Declaration was drafted, the peoples of the world got together and decided what rights were important and Universal enough to put into the document. In fact, it's possible to say that it is the ultimate community standard.
Can you propose any reason other than a consensus that religion is more important than most other concerns for religion receiving explicit protection in almost every document purporting to list human rights? Can you propose any reason for the exclusion of the right to strip from such documents other than a consensus that it is not as important as the right ro free manifestation of religious beliefs?
quote:No. I can't. Beyond the motivation behind the actions, the effect on society is either zero or positive or bad depending on how the action is carried out.
So only the effect on society should be counted? No room left for individual conscience to receive greater protection than individual preference?
In other words, think of factors in determining whether a behavior is allowed as being 1) the effect of the behavior on society, and 2) the effect of prohibiting the behavior on individuals who wish to behave that way.
Your analysis has begged the second question, assuming that the effect of prohibiting stripping has the same effect on the individual as prohibiting wearing of visible religious symbols in public schools. The counter-assumption is that prohibitions which affect actions performed by people as a matter of right and wrong have a greater impact than prohibitions of actions performed for most other reasons.
You've given no reasons why your assumption should be preferred over those expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even if you don't accept the idea that conscience trumps mere preference, the best interpretation you can give is that we're both begging the question here. And if that's the case, then you have no real support to your contention that opposing Janet's nipple-reveal and opposing the headscarve ban at the same time is hypocritical.
Dagonee
[ February 10, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, if the state is going to mandate a dress code, it should do so without regard to a person's religion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which it is not doing in this case.
But the dress code does not allow for head scarves and yamulkas. School uniforms. The request was that the exception be made for religious emblems of head scarves and yamulkas. I don't believe students were allowed to wear them before. So, I'm not sure that it is.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O.K. You know the general question I am asking and I think are being deliberately obtuse in arrowing in on the specifics that don't speak to the general question. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you were very insistent that only that specific question be answered, and I wanted to be complete.
O.K.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal to authority. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheap misues of fallacy.
Appeals to authority are not automatically dismissible, especially when they represent the culmination of a debate very similar to the one at hand.
Not a misuse. Had you constructed an argument and then used the DHR to buttress your point, you might be on to something. But you didn't. YOu just pointed to it and basically said, they say it's right so it must be.
quote: Can you propose any reason other than a consensus that religion is more important than most other concerns for religion receiving explicit protection in almost every document purporting to list human rights? Can you propose any reason for the exclusion of the right to strip from such documents other than a consensus that it is not as important as the right ro free manifestation of religious beliefs?
I'm not here to make your case for you. What's the argument? Lots of governments and laws have targetted various religions specifically and either made them illegal or worked against the members of the religious community.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. I can't. Beyond the motivation behind the actions, the effect on society is either zero or positive or bad depending on how the action is carried out. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: So only the effect on society should be counted? No room left for individual conscience to receive greater protection than individual preference?
In other words, think of factors in determining whether a behavior is allowed as being 1) the effect of the behavior on society, and 2) the effect of prohibiting the behavior on individuals who wish to behave that way.
Your analysis has begged the second question, assuming that the effect of prohibiting stripping has the same effect on the individual as prohibiting wearing of visible religious symbols in public schools.
It may. We often can't tell, now can we?
quote: The counter-assumption is that prohibitions which affect actions performed by people as a matter of right and wrong have a greater impact than prohibitions of actions performed for most other reasons.
Why should other people care, inasmuch as the behavior effects them, what the motivation is?
quote: You've given no reasons why your assumption should be preferred over those expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Because if you don't follow observable effects, you run into the exact problem the Muslims and Jews in France are facing right now. This is my point. Without observable effects, you are left to rely on the prejudices of the community to determine right and wrong. You are left to rely on the judgement of the shrillest, most powerful voices in a society to determine right and wrong and these values are often not based on reason but merely prejudice.
[/quote]
quote: Even if you don't accept the idea that conscience trumps mere preference,
What's the difference? How do you tell one from the other?
quote:
the best interpretation you can give is that we're both begging the question here. And if that's the case, then you have no real support to your contention that opposing Janet's nipple-reveal and opposing the headscarve ban at the same time is hypocritical.
The whole argument that I am railing against, that I've been railing against on this forum for lo these many months, is that community standards should be based on the prejudices of the community. People, groups of people, should be tolerant of others even when they fall outside their morality. Don't try and shut people down because you think they are vulgar and obscene. Don't try and mandate what people can and can't wear. Just leave people alone unless you feel like you're in danger. Be outraged, sure, but allow people the freedom to express themselves as they see fit (physical harm notwithstanding, etc). The community should not determine morality for the individual outside of the community's need to keep its members safe. It's hypocritical to argue that community standards defy explanation or rationale when it supports your standards and then argue against them when it doesn't.
(For future reference, if anyone else replies, I'm focusing on replies to Dagonee. I don't have the stamina to reply to everyone. Sorry.)
[ February 10, 2004, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Storm Saxon,
quote:Point of my posts is that social conservatives, who are often 'religious', often favor social censure of what people can wear, say, and do. I never meant to say that it was religous people exclusively. I admit that my phrasing was sloppy. Perhaps 'social conservatives' might be more explicit. In any case, however I phrased it, it does not matter to my overall argument, that people should be free to express themselves as they wish without directly endangering others, regardless of community standards, and that showing favoritism to religious people when community standards go against them is hypocritical.
But the fact of the matter is that the majority of people, more or less everywhere, don't agree with the italicized portion. And "should" is a nice word (and I am not being sarcastic, I do mean it, I use it too often myself), but where in law is it found? Speaking from an American perspective, where is the ideal that if it doesn't hurt anyone, it should be legal (an ideal in which I largely believe) found?
I believe that you initially singled out religious conservatives for your "grim satisfaction" because of a pre-existing bias. It was only after this was pointed out by several people that you changed it to "social conservatives", two things which are, ultimately, radically different. A great many liberal movements throughout history have been started by religious people.
quote:Is social censure on what I can wear and say and see not as important as what Jews and Muslims can wear and say and see? Why should religious personal preferences carry more weight than just plain, old personal preferences?
Speaking in American terms, because "plain old personal preferences" aren't nearly as specifically protected in state and federal constitutions. A whim is one thing, a belief one has in a commandment of God is another. To use your logic, headscarves and yarmulkes certainly don't hurt you, so why are you kicking up such a ruckus?
Because you are predisposed to disagree with religious conservatives, that's why. That you are unwilling to accord religious people the same respect (their covenant is the same as my silly whim) in indicative. It certainly appears that way, though, or at least biased against "social conservatives".
quote:Whole point is that I want social religious conservatives/social conservatives, whatever, to remember this the next time they start writing their congressthings about obscenity and indecency. I mean, I doubt they will,as I'm sure you won't. Nobody here is actually responding to what I've written and instead is focusing on whether or not I'm religiously biased. I guess it's easier to argue about that than tackle the subjects that I've raised.
Oh, cry me a river, Storm Saxon. I was responding-and so were others-to a very obvious undertone in your post.
Quit your whining, Storm Saxon, and man up. Or not. It's a dead subject to me.
-------
quote:what is the difference between the censure of Jackson's nipple and the censure of Muslim headscarves?
In America? Laws protecting religious expression are very specific in the US Constitution, in addition to many other places. Tell me the same about exposing one's body on national television, and you'll have a foot to stand on.
quote:It's not a straight yes or no answer. To be brief, I don't think the state should force anyone to choose between their personal beliefs and public school. However, if the state is going to mandate a dress code, it should do so without regard to a person's religion.
It's definitely not a straight yes or no answer, since that is exactly what France is doing. If, as you said, "I don't believe students were allowed to wear them before. So, I'm not sure that it is," why was there a vote on it?
quote:But the dress code does not allow for head scarves and yamulkas. School uniforms.
*rolleyes* This is precisely the same thing. A school uniform in a public school that prohibits harmless things such as headscarves and yarmulkes is a direct targetting of Jews and Muslims. They're the ones affected by it.
It's just as ridiculous as the notion that homosexuals have equal rights as heterosexuals in America, "Because a homosexual man has the right to get married to a woman if he wants to, just like a heterosexual man."
And I'll bet that's a lot less palatable, ain't it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the dress code does not allow for head scarves and yamulkas. School uniforms. The request was that the exception be made for religious emblems of head scarves and yamulkas. I don't believe students were allowed to wear them before. So, I'm not sure that it is.
There is no school uniform - it’s a general ban of specifically religious clothing. From the bill: “In primary and secondary state schools, wearing signs and clothes that conspicuously display the pupil's religious affiliation is forbidden.” It is aimed at religious expression; I bet anti-war T-shirts are allowed.
quote:Not a misuse. Had you constructed an argument and then used the DHR to buttress your point, you might be on to something. But you didn't. YOu just pointed to it and basically said, they say it's right so it must be.
Actually, I used it as a presumption-shifting mechanism.
quote:I'm not here to make your case for you.
But you are here to make your case, and without answers to these questions your case is incomplete. I’m not here to provide detailed refutations to arguments you haven’t expressed.
quote:What's the argument? Lots of governments and laws have targetted various religions specifically and either made them illegal or worked against the members of the religious community.
My argument is quite simply that both factors should be taken into account when deciding whether to use the coercive force of the state to ban particular behaviors. It’s a fairly straightforward cost/benefit analysis.
quote:It may. We often can't tell, now can we?
But we often can, can’t we?
quote:Why should other people care, inasmuch as the behavior effects them, what the motivation is?
Because the motivation is directly related to the cost born by the individual who desires to perform restricted actions. Protecting rights requires balancing one person’s rights against another person’s. The motivation is part of the calculus as to the costs in the costs/benefits analysis.
If someone cuts me off I get annoyed. If I know they’re doing it so they can get to the hospital, I am less annoyed.
quote:Because if you don't follow observable effects, you run into the exact problem the Muslims and Jews in France are facing right now. This is my point. Without observable effects, you are left to rely on the prejudices of the community to determine right and wrong. You are left to rely on the judgement of the shrillest, most powerful voices in a society to determine right and wrong and these values are often not based on reason but merely prejudice.
No – most liberal democracies are set up so that majoritarian institutions (legislatures, elected executives) can determine most policy. In these institutions, shrill voices get heard most. However, these liberal democracies also have institutions with a less direct political check whose main job is to protect minorities from the rash desires of the majority. Because such an institution is both hard to control and against the basic premise that power flows from the people, such institutions have generally relied on internal and external checks of their power. One of those checks is the limited definition of what constitutes a “right.”
Defining something as a right has multiple effects. One of those effects is that it puts a break on the ability of the branches of government most responsible to the people to act in accordance with the people’s wishes. That is why it is seen as a very big deal to name something a right.
By definition, some things that we think people should be allowed to do will not be given the exalted status of rights. There are three traditional spheres or factors that suggest something should be considered a right:
Those that affect the ability of citizens to serve as a political check on the majoritarian institutions (voting, speech, assembly) or to receive the civil benefits of society (equal protection).
Those that affect the ability of citizens to be free from arbitrary taking of property, taking of life, or physical restraint by government (due process, search and seizure rules, habeas corpus).
Those that affect the ability of citizens to live within the dictates of their conscience. (free speech, religious freedom and banning of religious establishment)
The ability to meet the demands placed upon you by the Creator as you perceive them is of great enough importance that it is worth stifling the powers of those branches most responsive to the people. The reasons involve the cost/benefit analysis discussed above. Obviously, some demands placed upon some people by the Creator as they perceive them will physically harm other people; in these cases the cost/benefit analysis would come down on allowing government restriction of such activities.
quote:What's the difference? How do you tell one from the other?
The difference is obvious in most cases. Borderline cases are inevitable in any rights situation and can be dealt with by the establishment of legal precedent.
quote:The whole argument that I am railing against, that I've been railing against on this forum for lo these many months, is that people, groups of people, should be tolerant of others even when they fall outside their morality. Don't try and shut people down because you think they are vulgar and obscene. Don't try and mandate what people can and can't wear. Just leave people alone unless you feel like you're in danger. Be outraged, sure, but allow people the freedom to express themselves as they see fit (physical harm notwithstanding, etc).
An “physical harm” requirement ignores the vast reality that real effects are not always observable or physical. It might be considered trite to say it, but exposure of children to sexual activity prematurely (as in witnessing, not participating) can be harmful in ways that are not physical and are not immediately evident. Now, I’m not in favor of the “you can’t show naughty things on television because of the children” arguments. Parents should control the TV their children watch. As long as parents have a way to tell in advance how risqué a show is, I don’t propose banning it.
(On a side not, I doubt anyone was traumatized by the exposure of a nipple on the Super Bowl. On most TV screens it probably couldn’t really be seen. I actually think the casual seemingly non-consensual ripping of the top was worse, especially for boys to see. I also don’t think CBS should be fined for this particular case.)
However, a sidewalk sex show your child has to pass on the way to school, that you might not even know about before the child sees it, is out of bounds. It’s not physically hurting anyone, but it is forcing sexual knowledge on children before they are ready.
quote:The community should not determine morality for the individual outside of the community's need to keep its members safe. It's hypocritical to argue that community standards defy explanation or rationale when it supports your standards and then argue against them when it doesn't.
You’ll note I haven’t argued that community standards defy explanation or rationale. I’ve simply said that there are some areas where community standards (as expressed by the enactments of the political branches answerable to the people) should be allowed to intrude and some where they should not.
quote:(For future reference, if anyone else replies, I'm focusing on replies to Dagonee. I don't have the stamina to reply to everyone. Sorry.)
I’m honored. (Not meant sarcastically.)
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: There is no school uniform - it’s a general ban of specifically religious clothing. From the bill: “In primary and secondary state schools, wearing signs and clothes that conspicuously display the pupil's religious affiliation is forbidden.” It is aimed at religious expression; I bet anti-war T-shirts are allowed.
The French in their infinite wisdom have decided that their community standard is that they are a secular society. As part of that standard, they are probably prejudiced towards Muslims and Jews and religious people, all at once, but perhaps moreso towards Muslims and Jews. Or it could really be that they are trying to keep Muslims from targetting Jews. Or it could be that they are trying to stem the tide of Islamicism. I do not condone what they are doing, but on the other hand, I think it provides a good example of what happens when people aren't given a fair shake and community standards prevail over what I loosely have been calling 'observable effects'.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may. We often can't tell, now can we? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But we often can, can’t we?
No we can't! How does another person know what another individual is really feeling? Your argument is saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that because religious people value their stuff more strongly than non-religious people, the effect of taking away their stuff will be more detrimental. (And people accuse me of bias?!? Lol.) Non-religious people feel just as strongly about certain things in their lives. Your argument is that just because someone is in a religion, their feelings for their religious stuff should be taken over someone who is not religious.
All people have the same capacity for depth of feeling. Does being religious change your ability to feel or care?
How can you tell someone's depth of feeling for something and why should society change its decisions because of that? Because someone tells you? Why should that matter? If we go by my criterion, if something does harm to someone, it should be banned no matter what the person's religious affilitation or depth of feeling. You can't wack someone in the head with a hammer no matter how much you may think God is telling you to do so or how much you love your special hammer. On the other hand, people should be able to practice their religion regardless of the depth of hatred that people feel for them and despise those symbols. It works both ways, don't you see? If we go by depth of feeling, if someone is given exceptions for what they really love, then exceptions are given for what people really hate. See, religious feeling works both ways. Crash a plane into a building with it or build a church. But just standing there with your special hat on, who knows?
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why should other people care, inasmuch as the behavior effects them, what the motivation is? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the motivation is directly related to the cost born by the individual who desires to perform restricted actions. Protecting rights requires balancing one person’s rights against another person’s. The motivation is part of the calculus as to the costs in the costs/benefits analysis.
If someone cuts me off I get annoyed. If I know they’re doing it so they can get to the hospital, I am less annoyed.
You make a good point here. I'm not arguing that motivation isn't important to people in how they see other people, or in how society often judges behavior, only that in most cases it is not relevant. *ponder* I'm arguing that in determining what to legislate against, or to activly work against, society should ideally only legislate against those observable effects that you know have an observable bad effect on society. I will say that I like the idea of taking into account motivation to create more freedom and happiness for individual members of society.
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because if you don't follow observable effects, you run into the exact problem the Muslims and Jews in France are facing right now. This is my point. Without observable effects, you are left to rely on the prejudices of the community to determine right and wrong. You are left to rely on the judgement of the shrillest, most powerful voices in a society to determine right and wrong and these values are often not based on reason but merely prejudice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No – most liberal democracies are set up so that majoritarian institutions (legislatures, elected executives) can determine most policy. In these institutions, shrill voices get heard most. However, these liberal democracies also have institutions with a less direct political check whose main job is to protect minorities from the rash desires of the majority. Because such an institution is both hard to control and against the basic premise that power flows from the people, such institutions have generally relied on internal and external checks of their power. One of those checks is the limited definition of what constitutes a “right.”
Defining something as a right has multiple effects. One of those effects is that it puts a break on the ability of the branches of government most responsible to the people to act in accordance with the people’s wishes. That is why it is seen as a very big deal to name something a right.
By definition, some things that we think people should be allowed to do will not be given the exalted status of rights. There are three traditional spheres or factors that suggest something should be considered a right:
Those that affect the ability of citizens to serve as a political check on the majoritarian institutions (voting, speech, assembly) or to receive the civil benefits of society (equal protection).
Those that affect the ability of citizens to be free from arbitrary taking of property, taking of life, or physical restraint by government (due process, search and seizure rules, habeas corpus). Those that affect the ability of citizens to live within the dictates of their conscience. (free speech, religious freedom and banning of religious establishment) The ability to meet the demands placed upon you by the Creator as you perceive them is of great enough importance that it is worth stifling the powers of those branches most responsive to the people. The reasons involve the cost/benefit analysis discussed above. Obviously, some demands placed upon some people by the Creator as they perceive them will physically harm other people; in these cases the cost/benefit analysis would come down on allowing government restriction of such activities.
It sounds nice but somehow these things seem to get forgotten quite often, don't they? Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus--they've all been discriminated against by democracies, haven't they? And why? Because of community rule. Those prejudices are often much stronger than any of those rights, because community prejudice deemed them a threat despite the lack of evidence showing that they were hurting anyone.
Rights are good. Rights are great. All that stuff governments have written down are super. All for'em. But that doesn't mean that perhaps another right can't be tacked on, one that the right to religion is a sub-category of, the right to steer by your own lights, the right to have the most happiness you can beg, borrow or steal as long as you don't take away someone else's happiness.(I actually think I am liking that definition for what I'm trying to say a lot more than perhaps what I've been saying.)
See, I'm not arguing against you so much as saying that it is too narrow and confers special privileges to the religious that should be conferred to everyone. To repeat, can't the 'non-religious' experience all the feelings the religious can feel? Sure they can. So, why limit religious feelings and aspirations who merely belong to an organized religion. Why not recognize that we are all religious in our feelings towards something and thus worthy of having our choices and desires honored as such.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What's the difference? How do you tell one from the other? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is obvious in most cases. Borderline cases are inevitable in any rights situation and can be dealt with by the establishment of legal precedent.
Really? How do you seperate acts of conscience from acts of preference? Maybe we're getting jammed up in semantics, but I'll be darned if I can tell. Unless someone slips on a banana peel or the like, if someone does something, they do it because they believe it is right and because they prefer to do so.
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The whole argument that I am railing against, that I've been railing against on this forum for lo these many months, is that people, groups of people, should be tolerant of others even when they fall outside their morality. Don't try and shut people down because you think they are vulgar and obscene. Don't try and mandate what people can and can't wear. Just leave people alone unless you feel like you're in danger. Be outraged, sure, but allow people the freedom to express themselves as they see fit (physical harm notwithstanding, etc). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An “physical harm” requirement ignores the vast reality that real effects are not always observable or physical. It might be considered trite to say it, but exposure of children to sexual activity prematurely (as in witnessing, not participating) can be harmful in ways that are not physical and are not immediately evident.
I do not at all agree with this. I have no idea what you're basing this on. Are you saying that if a two year old sees his mother and father having sex, that this somehow damages his psyche?
quote: Now, I’m not in favor of the “you can’t show naughty things on television because of the children” arguments. Parents should control the TV their children watch. As long as parents have a way to tell in advance how risqué a show is, I don’t propose banning it.
I appreciate you saying that.
quote:
(On a side not, I doubt anyone was traumatized by the exposure of a nipple on the Super Bowl. On most TV screens it probably couldn’t really be seen. I actually think the casual seemingly non-consensual ripping of the top was worse, especially for boys to see. I also don’t think CBS should be fined for this particular case.)
Good, good.
quote: However, a sidewalk sex show your child has to pass on the way to school, that you might not even know about before the child sees it, is out of bounds. It’s not physically hurting anyone, but it is forcing sexual knowledge on children before they are ready.
Again, I don't know why you believe this. I think it may 'damage' a child's sense of, how to put it, what things mean and make them think. However, I think primary communities and families are far, far, far more powerful determiners of behavior and thought than things children see outside of those communities. Any child over the age of, say, six who saw some sidewalk sex show, and who came from a culture that defined sex as sacred only in marriage, would almost certainly know that what those people were doing was wrong within their culture. Further, if the child were exposed to things outside of their moral culture as a matter of course, they would know that what those people were doing was o.k. for them but not for him or her. If the child was from one of those cultures, they would certainly be accompanied by a parent who, I'm sure, would let them know in no uncertain terms what they thought of that behavior at some point. This would then help *reinforce* the child's sense of right and wrong. 'Barbarians do it, but we don't.'
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The community should not determine morality for the individual outside of the community's need to keep its members safe. It's hypocritical to argue that community standards defy explanation or rationale when it supports your standards and then argue against them when it doesn't. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ll note I haven’t argued that community standards defy explanation or rationale. I’ve simply said that there are some areas where community standards (as expressed by the enactments of the political branches answerable to the people) should be allowed to intrude and some where they should not.
O.K. I'm sticking by my observable effects definition and saying they can't cross the line till then. And maybe not even then, depending.
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (For future reference, if anyone else replies, I'm focusing on replies to Dagonee. I don't have the stamina to reply to everyone. Sorry.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m honored. (Not meant sarcastically.)
Anyone who takes the time to write things out makes me take the time to write things out. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and replying to these things takes forever and a day. I enjoy talking with you, don't mistake me, but the reality is that I can't type these kinds of replies to everyone. Not sure I would want to, anyway. Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I've said it before, and this ban just proves it: France's government is inherently anti-semitic. It's no coincidence that the only religions being banned of public display are both semitic. Do they ban crucifixes? Rosaries? "WWJD" shirts?
This is utter BS.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm,
Before I go on, can we take a step back and clarify where we are in the discussion?
1.) Do you oppose the French law? I think you do – you seem to be saying that you oppose not only the French law but also other laws that infringe on people’s rights to wear what they want.
2.) Do you think that the analysis I presented in my previous post suffers from the hypocrisy you’ve been talking about? I’m not asking if you agree with my analysis, since it’s clear you don’t, just if you think it is hypocritical.
If the answers to these are Yes and No, respectively, then I think we can end this portion of the conversation. Because I’m not trying to change your mind on this – I just wanted to defend against the accusation of hypocrisy. I actually think we would support very similar laws on these subjects and, on the ones we disagree, I think I have a clear notion of what types of evidence could change your mind. That’s a pretty successful intellectual argument, in my mind.
I think the irony here is that while you don’t agree with the French law, you’ve been put in the position of “defending” it in a sense. Similarly, I don’t agree with most obscenity or decency laws (although I think I favor some that you wouldn’t) and have been put in the position of defending them in a sense.
If you do think any portion of my analysis is hypocritical, could you focus your next post on strictly showing the perceived hypocrisy, not the parts of the analysis you just disagree with on philosophical grounds? If so, I will answer those concerns.
I would be interesting in starting a thread on the proper scope of government restrictions and community standards for a more in depth discussion of the philosophical differences we’ve broached here, but only after I finish the brief I’ve been procrastinating on.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, John, large crucifixes are explicitly included in the ban.
This seems to be equal-opportunity religious discrimination.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Rosaries?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Does this ban mean that a girl may wear a head scarf, as long as it is not religious?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I haven't read the all thread (sorry but I talk so much about this law in my own country that I'm getting quite fed up) just to say that you're wrong to put Jewish people and Muslim people together : actually the raise of antisemitism here is partly fact of Muslims who "show their solidarity with their brothers Palestinians" Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Oh, and what rivka said : this is not against one religion. I even guess that if someone went to school with a T-shirt with "God does not exist" on it, it would be against the law.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm at work/slave labor/hell right now and can't make long posts. I'll reply later, Dags.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Anna, Islam is a semitic religion, just like Judaism.
And what laws has France passed to stop crimes against Jews whenever there is an uproar over Israel's actions? I don't have a link here, but the last time the Israeli army retaliated in force to a few bombings, there was violent backlash against Jews and synagogues in—you guessed it—France. I'm not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere, but I see people found, arrested, and charged when I see it elsewhere. Basically, the government just looked the other way when it happened.
This ban is going to turn into the same thing: Jews and Muslims alike are now required to break their faith or not get an education, or submit themselves to ridicule and expulsion. What is the government going to do for these people's rights? Nothing.
It's anti-semitism.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Leto's right, Anna. France is currently working its way through some pretty strong anti-semitism. Just look at the results of your last election and see who almost got into power. People said that that should have been a wake up call for France, but it doesn't appear to have been. Then people said maybe this will be, again, it doesn't seem to have been. Nobody likes to think that their country is in the wrong, but the French people really need to take a good long look at where they want their country to go.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I'm not saying France is perfect, far from it. But for people belonging to a country who did a war pretending another country had massive destruction weapon, when it was false, and doesn't feel upset about it, I find all of you pretty arrogant.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm Canadian Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I don't remember Canada opposing to this war. At last not as we did.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think the law is a reaction to the un-Frenchness of the significant and growing Muslim minority. I view it as a cultural protectionist measure.
Edit:
Canada didn't participate in the war in Iraq, which was viewed by some Americans as a slap in the face.
[ February 11, 2004, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
A lot of countries didn't participate. It's not the same thing as opposing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not saying France is perfect, far from it. But for people belonging to a country who did a war pretending another country had massive destruction weapon, when it was false, and doesn't feel upset about it, I find all of you pretty arrogant.
How is it arrogant to point out concrete evidence of growing anti-semitism in France or show concern about the limits on relgious freedom being passed there?
Considering France's public statements about the U.S. before the war, I thought we had a "say whatever you want" kind of relationship between our countries.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think the law is a reaction to the un-Frenchness of the significant and growing Muslim minority. I view it as a cultural protectionist measure.
I know I said I wouldn't respond to anyone but Dagonee, but let me just say that I agree. There's a lot more here than just simple anti-semitism. Secular society vs. religious society, Normalcy versus indecency, Christianity vs. Islam/Judaism, cultural protectionism, the very real problem that Islamicists represent, the very real problems that edit: some Muslims are creating in French society with their anti-semitic/anti-liberalism attitudes. All these things are represented in this law. I don't think it's fair to just willy-nilly throw the charge of anti-semitism at France, as it doesn't address any of these real problems.
If it's fair to shout charges of anti-semitism at the French, then it's fair to charge many Muslims with being anti-French, anti-Christian, anti-Judaica, and intolerant.
[ February 11, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The Toronto Star has a decent summary of why the ban is so widely supported.
For you Americans and French folk who choose to read the whole article, you can feel free to either ignore the flagrant Canadian patriotism, or accept that we're the greatest country on earth
>> One reason has to do with France's long history of conflict between religious and secular authorities. For nearly a century and a half after the 1789 French Revolution, the Catholic Church did everything it could to bring down the Republic and restore a monarchy. This bred a fierce strain of anti-church sentiment among those who supported democracy and the Republic.
Over the years the battle went back and forth, satirized in countless French novels, plays and stories about the conflict between the village priest, representing the forces of religion, and the town schoolteacher who represented the forces of secularism.
Although the Catholic Church lost out when a 1905 law separated church and state, the revival of religion today, especially among Muslims, but also among Jews and Christians, has rekindled anti-clerical sentiment among those who fear the secular and democratic values represented by the public school system will be undermined as religion encroaches on the school system. <<
I also think part of the problem is that much of the Muslim minority lives in what essentially amount to ghettos and are generally not very well off. That sort of environment can also foster strong community ties and religious sentiments; even religious fanatacism.
Edit: Exactly, Stormy.
[ February 11, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Anna, for the vast majority of us (if not all) pretense was not involved. With the exception of certain members of the government, and possibly excepting all but a few intelligence agents, most of us who supported the war believed that the weapons were there. So what happens to our "arrogance"?
I'd like to respond to the main argument in the thread, but I'm having trouble coming up with an immediate response to Storm Saxon. I've been suffering from that a lot lately.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you, Twinky, for at least trying to see this dispassionately. Your posts always stand out. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's obvious that religious law in no way trumps governmenent law. We suppress religious law all the time. If you kill someone because your religion says it's ok, you still going to get convicted of murder.
This isn't an issue of whether or not the government should be forced to support religious laws. They obviously shouldn't, unless we want to regard 9/11 as something we should support.
This is a question of tolerance of religious laws. The idea that it was immoral for women to teach men was once considered part of Christianity. If parents refused to have their male children taught in a school that had women teachers, should we force the government to accomodate them? Of course not. We'd violate their religious law in a heartbeat. I have very little sympathy for saying that something is wrong solely because it "restricts" someone's religion.
Does the government have the right to ban religious dress? That depends. Does the government or school administration in some American schools have the right to ban gang colors? If so, why?
I'd say that they do have the right to ban gang colors, because the presence of gang colors specificaly impedes the central function of the school. If the French government could show that wearing religious dress specifically impedes their schools, I think that they would have the right to ban such dress, just as they would gang colors. I don't think that this is the case, however. It seems to me that they are mistaking areligion with anti-religion.
Our default response should be to allow freedom. I don't think that this is evident in this case. It seems to me that the French has targeted religious stuff because it is religious, instead of because of it's direct effects. They are trying to curtail freedom because they don't like the thoughts that the people are having. That's not enlightened. That's the essence of tyranny.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Read some of the links provided, Squicky, and you'll see there is more to it than that.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I dunno, perhaps I'm still squicked out by Le Pen. I mean, this is the man who said he was bothered by seeing the outlines of mosques on the horizon when he travels through the country, where only church spires should grace the sky. And yet he charged up the polls two years ago. No, he didn't win in the end, but it was still worrisome. I understand that France has a long history of protecting its culture, its language and its secularism. I also think that this is a narrow and dangerous line to walk. It's an idea that's easy to hide behind when you're passing legislature. Mind you, they seem perfectly fine with the idea that immigrants must leave their cultures behind and conform to the French way of living. Perhaps I'm superimposing my own values on them. If everyone knows that in order to live in France you must be a French men than if you have a problem with it, don't go. Maybe that’s fine. Either way, it’s just another reason for me to stay in comfy Canada .
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I agree that this is part of a resurgence of anti-clericism and that, in it's time, anti-clericism was very important for the advance of human freedom. The problem is that people are using pretty much the same tactics that the religious used to promote hatred and prevent freedom. They're fighting against something and using bad means to do so, not fighting for something and uses the principles of this thing.
Of couse, I think that this is at least partially a side-effect of a populist form of government, where, if enough people believe in something, you can, oh I don't know, pass a constitutional amendment, to use might makes right instead of relying on right itself.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Please note that I'm not saying that anti-semitism isn't a part of the motivation of some French people. I'm also not defending this passage. I think the problem is much deeper than head scarves and yarmulkes. I think fundamentally the problem is intolerance on all sides, Muslim and French, and that somehow they need to learn how to live together so that each can get what they want.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, I think that Chirac is trying to make the principle of secularization not just a principle of government, but one of the French public. That's as rejcting of liberalism as what the religious people want to do with the country. Liberalism is first and foremost, allowing people to think what they want. France's very policy of "cultural protectionism", meaning whatever the government defines as what they want French people to be like, is already anti-liberalism.
I agree that there are a lot of important issues here. The rise of fundamentalist religions, especially Muslim, in regions of populist government is a big threat to liberalism. There's a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping Europe that's largely borne on a wave of Islamic immigrants. If people think that abandoning liberalism is the only way to deal with these problems, ok. Just don't tell me that they're protecting liberalism, because that's clearly not what they're doing.
[ February 11, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K., Squicky. I kind of agree with you.
Like I said, problem is on both sides.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To make my stand clear on this, I'm pro-freedom but largely anti-populist. The problems presented by the rise in fundamentalist Islam is not in the individual beliefs of the people, barring illegal activities, but rather on the growing power of this group of people to impose their views on others (although the children angle is worrying to me too). Might (represented in this case by number of voters) making right is a fundamental problem with democratic systems, and has been recognized as such since Classical times. That's why we have a system of rights in place to, as best we can, check this impulse.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Macchabeus, are you kidding or what ? EVERYONE here knew it was false. The UNO told you it was false. If you choose to trust no one but CNN, you are responsible for your lack of information. Besides, now you know it was false. What do you do about that?
[ February 11, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Americans being called arrogant by a Frenchwoman?
That's hilarious in both directions. If there's a nation with more arrogance and less capability than France, I haven't heard of it. If there's a nation with more arrogance and more capability than the USA, I haven't heard of it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and by the way Anna...tell me where anyone offered proof that the claims were false.
Those claims haven't even been issued by anyone to the present. I'm not sure if it's a language barrier or not, but you are mistaken in that claim.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If there's a nation with more arrogance and less capability than France, I haven't heard of it. If there's a nation with more arrogance and more capability than the USA, I haven't heard of it.
Awww...I missed Rakeesh.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Missed all the Jatraqueros and you too, Ms. Zamboni Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: 1.) Do you oppose the French law? I think you do – you seem to be saying that you oppose not only the French law but also other laws that infringe on people’s rights to wear what they want.
I oppose it, but as I mentioned, I do believe both sides are at fault in things getting to this point.
quote: 2.) Do you think that the analysis I presented in my previous post suffers from the hypocrisy you’ve been talking about? I’m not asking if you agree with my analysis, since it’s clear you don’t, just if you think it is hypocritical.
*fidgets* Hypocrisy was a bad choice of words on my part and I apologize for using it. From your posts, I think you are saying that you believe religion and religious choices have a greater need for, or are worthy of more, protection than non-religious ones. If I am wrong in how I am reading what you wrote, let me know.
My point about hypocrisy was that it was 'hypocritical'(for lack of a better word at the moment) for a person to say that they supported community standards when it conforms to their moral beliefs, but not to support them when they go against their moral, or social beliefs. That is, community morality is all well and good as long as it doesn't effect religious choices.
I think your argument that this standard is not hypocritical is that the idea of religious ideas being special is in a lot of important documents, and is an important component of many civic ideals, so it is therefore understandable that people believe that religion and religious choices should be accorded some kind of special status over non-religious ones.
(edit: My grammar is the suck.)
It may be understandable, but if a person supports a principle for one group, but not the one they belong to, forgive me, but I'm not sure what the proper word is....
quote: If the answers to these are Yes and No, respectively, then I think we can end this portion of the conversation. Because I’m not trying to change your mind on this – I just wanted to defend against the accusation of hypocrisy. I actually think we would support very similar laws on these subjects and, on the ones we disagree, I think I have a clear notion of what types of evidence could change your mind. That’s a pretty successful intellectual argument, in my mind.
I think the irony here is that while you don’t agree with the French law, you’ve been put in the position of “defending” it in a sense. Similarly, I don’t agree with most obscenity or decency laws (although I think I favor some that you wouldn’t) and have been put in the position of defending them in a sense.
If you do think any portion of my analysis is hypocritical, could you focus your next post on strictly showing the perceived hypocrisy, not the parts of the analysis you just disagree with on philosophical grounds? If so, I will answer those concerns.
I recognize the fact that we both have been put in the position of things that we would normally be against and would certainly be happy to participate to some degree in a new thread.
By the way, I didn't put things in quotes because, well, I'm lazy and didn't want to wade back over the thread. It's taking me long enough just trying to type this stuff out in the most polite way possible. If I'm wrong, you don't need to go back and 'show' me that I'm wrong, just tell me where what I wrote above is wrong and that will be that. We can then let this thread drop and move on to whatever topic you wish to discuss.
[ February 11, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Hey, Anna, I specifically said the government, and I stick by it. I have problems with the American, Canadian, German, etc. governments, too. However, each problem I have with each government is separate from the other. I didn't preface my statement with "America is better because" when I said what I said. I pointed out that the biggest flaw with the French government that bothers me to no end is its anti-semitism. It's always bothered me, and it bothers me no matter what government is doing it. This is an example of the government actually legislating it, which is what I pointed out, and which is why I don't like it. I'm arrogant for many things, but not for what you're accusing me of this time. Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
The previous is said with a friendly smile and the warmest of feelings, by the way, because I like Anna, and don't want her to have the wrong impression of me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:From your posts, I think you are saying that you believe religion and religious choices have a greater need for, or are worthy of more, protection than non-religious ones.
Basically, except I don't limit the things that need protecting to religious choices. I believe certain things are worthy of more protection than other things. I include religous choices, expression (speech, press), petition for redress, liberty (physical - not being in prison), etc. in the list of things worthy of greater protection.
I think the only acceptable limits on these rights is when the exercise of these rights intereferes with the rights of other people. Balancing such interference is the truly difficult job of the judiciary. It requires weighing the importance of the implicated rights to each person and the extent of the restrictions being imposed.
quote:It may be understandable, but if a person supports a principle for one group, but not the one they belong to, forgive me, but I'm not sure what the proper word is....
See, I don't see it as supporting a principle for one group and not another. If some people don't care to wear clothing that expresses religious or other beliefs, then they just aren't taking advantage of a right they have.
I'll have to think up a good way to frame the discussion for a new thread. I'm interested in the whole subject of balancing individual rights within democratic societies. It'd be interesting to see where people think the boundaries should lie.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This is a subject I find it difficult to take sides on. (ahem, I'm also Canadian). There is a hugely strong argument on both sides. I think it's an interesting ban, at the very least, and watching the people of France react to such a ban is going to be interesting.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Rakeesh, I was not talking about my or your government, but about you and me. I mean, all of you. You are here giving us lessons, when your country is not better than ours. I could enumerate, but I'm not going to lose my time with it. Let's say that I never (or really rarely) tried to give you lessons on how to direct your country. That's why I don't judge myself as arrogant, and you as arrogant.
EDIT : hadn't read your post, John. I'm not blaming you. It's just that it's irritating to hear lessons sometimes, especially here where I'm the only French (oh Stephane, where are you when I need you ?) and feel like being attaked myself and not only my government (by the way I don't agree with them politicaly even if I voted for it to avoid a nazi for president, as a lot of persons here did.)
[ February 12, 2004, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Anna -
There's a parable which comes to the defense of those who are criticizing the French government.
A man once came to a small village, and was treated with great hospitality. When he was offered a drink, however, he was shocked; the water was sandy and tasted terrible. In return for the village's hospitality, he taught the villagers how to filter the water so that it would be pure.
The villagers were ecstatic; they thanked the man and the man went on his way.
Several months later the man returned to the village - to find that a large portion of the village was lying in ruins, blackened by what must have been an enormous fire.
Shocked, the man asked the villagers what had happened. They explained that a fire had broken out, and since filtering water took a while, they couldn't get enough water ready quickly enough to put out the fire.
"You fools!" the man said, saddened. "When a fire is raging, you use any water you can find!"
~~~
Ideally, we would only reprimand our fellows if we were perfect in that area ourselves. Humans are not perfect, though, and if this ideal was followed, few people would be in the position to criticize others, to protest wrongs or injustices. A few people - a limited amount of water - is not enough to put out a fire. If a fire is raging, if there's a serious problem that needs addressing, this should be the concern of everyone, not just those who are completely blameless themselves.
~~~~
In addition, no one was attacking you directly. They were criticizing your government, yes, but I can assure you that they (probably) criticize their own government as well.
Every government has issues. If only perfect governments were allowed to criticize other governments, then institutes such as the United Nations could not exist, and no country could ever pressure another country to stop doing something widely believed to be wrong.
And one last, completely non-relatd note: Whether or not there were WMD in Iraq is important only insofar as their absence would indicate failure on the part of American Intelligence. Iraq was still being run by a dictator who murdered indiscriminately, who imposed harsh laws on his country, and who was a self-proclaimed enemy of the U.S. They'd had WMD at one point, and could have restocked at any point - but even if not, there still was a valid reason to go to war. It isn't as though the entire war is now a mistake simply because one of the causes for going to war seems to no longer be valid.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: You are here giving us lessons, when your country is not better than ours. I could enumerate, but I'm not going to lose my time with it.
The discussion on this topic has been similar to many a discussion here about American policies. Some for it, some against it, lots of sidetracks and derailments.
quote:Let's say that I never (or really rarely) tried to give you lessons on how to direct your country. That's why I don't judge myself as arrogant, and you as arrogant.
I still don't understand how commenting on a policy which is receiving wide press coverage and discussion is arrogant.
Dagonee
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I know what you're saying, Anna, and I assure you I'm not attacking you. But don't worry—I'm on your side when it comes to anyone attacking you personally. As far as I see it, France is experiencing a problem similar to the US: a leader(s) that doesn't speak for the "people" as a whole, but for a loud minority who have agendas and make the people in general look bad.
And other guys, you can ease off the heavy-handedness with Anna. She's not disagreeing about the ban, she's saying that not everyone supports it.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
OK, I will try to be clear on my opinions, but it will be pretty hard, because I'm not really in favor or against the ban. So. First, I'm agaisnt the ban, because Kama is right, the options we give to the girls who wear a veil are not acceptable at all. But then... I'm going to tell something I don't tell usually because it's kind of humiliating. As most of you know, I'm a woman, I live in France and I'm 22. But I am considered as attractive (understand I have big breasts). There are always been men looking at me in the street, sometimes trying to touch me. But there has been a raise in these deplaced acts (see the hug thread to have an exemple) and I hope you won't say I'm racist if I say that by the color of the skin of the men who behave like that, they probably are Muslims. They think : hey, my sister is respectable, she wears a veil, but this woman in the steet doesn't hide her hair, so I can do whatever I want with her. Proof : this happens far far less when I wear a hat. So I'm afraid, yes. To dramatize things, I'm afraid to wake up one day in the islamic Afghanistan. So even if I know it's unfair to force the girls to do something that is against their religion (but a lot of people say the obligation of wearing a veil is not in the Koran but only a tradition, so...) I feel relieved thinking that these guys will see that theirs sisters are still respectable, even if they are not hiding their hair. Egoïstic, maybe. Certainly. But I love my freedom, thank you.
EDIT to add that I don't think I will post again on the subject, or only if there is an interesting question.
[ February 13, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Careful, Anna. People will accuse you of being racist. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I'm not sure I understand. Are you ironic ? I mean, if I say something like that here in France, some people will call me racist. We don't kid with racism, and it's dificult sometimes to express the fact that you don't agree with something that is in another culture without being called a racist, even if it's bad like treating women like cows.
[ February 13, 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm being sarcastic because the same affliction of being unable to criticize anything but the dominant culture exists here in America quite often.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Anna, that must have been difficult to post. It does help me understand you much better, though. Thanks.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
(((((Claudia Therese))))) You are a wonderfull person and I know I don't have to fear your judgement. Thank you. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
May have been they mistook your dark coloring as indicating you were at least partly of recent ethnicMuslim background, Anna. Interestingly enough, they are probably correct except for the 'recent'. Due to the Muslim conquests, most presentday Europeans can claim to be a direct descendent of Mohammed through his daughter Fatima. But then, most Europeans also have a legitimate claim to be of royal blood, with at least Charlemagne as an ancestor.
Ethnic-looking FrenchMuslim women were amongst those who initiated the push for the headscarf ban. They felt that radical"Muslim" clergy were using the headscarf as a public badge to encourage punishment -- rape and/or public sexual molestation&humiliation -- of Muslim girls&women who didn't wear the headscarf, for failing to follow the NorthAfrican&antiMuslim custom of being the chattel property of men.
[ February 13, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And frankly, the claims of "Americans wouldn't do that" expressed here are ill-informed jingoism.
'Separation of church and state' was initially presented in the South by the KluKluxKlan and the SouthernBaptists to prevent RomanCatholics from holding public office and government jobs, under the wrong theory that compliance to the Pope's desires is the primary loyalty of Church members under RomanCatholic doctrine. Heck ya still see posters on this forum trying to push the complete&utter nonsense that the Pope's word is automaticly RomanCatholic doctrine. And earlier in the North, rioting by RomanCatholics forced public schools to cease using the St.James Bible as the primary reader (ie the text with which to teach reading). Etc. And it was less than a quarter century ago that Sikhs and Jews who wore turbans and yarmulkes were kicked out the USArmedServices by a USSupremeCourt decision agreeing with the desires of the Republican ReaganAdministration.
[ February 13, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And frankly, the claims of "Americans wouldn't do that" expressed here are ill-informed jingoism.
Who said this in this thread? There have been appeals to values enshrined in the federal and state constitutions, but no one has suggested America is perfect on this score. Jingoism, indeed.
quote:Heck ya still see posters on this forum trying to push the complete&utter nonsense that the Pope's word is automaticly RomanCatholic doctrine.
Who has said this? I haven't seen such a claim since I got here, and I definitely would have responded to that.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
This exchange inre Gibson's Passion is just the latest in a long trail of such postings misunderstanding both the history&doctrine of Papal Infallibility*, and the role of the Pope as servant of the Church (defined by Vatican II as the nonclergy membership) and not its tyrant.
*The link fails to mention that PiuxIX was also the politicianfirst who railroaded that doctrine -- considered blasphemous under previous RomanCatholic Popes -- through Vatican I by financial intimidation, etc. Most bishops/voters couldn't even hear the debate, nor was a copy of the debate allowed to be circulated before the vote.
[ February 13, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Where in that thread does anyone say that the pope's word is automatically Church doctrine? What are you getting at here?
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If you haven't noticed, Dagonee, I don't participate in "having the last word" contests. For those interested, use this site's searchengine on either pope or catholic or some form of infallible. You'll run across plenty of "if they don't like what the Pope says..." or (due to similarly mistaken belief) "...Catholic doctrine (referring to what a pope advocated rather than actual doctrine) says, they should leave the Church".
[ February 13, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Um, aspectre, not to pull some wind from your sails, but the KKK was not involved in such legislation, as their group had other priorities, most notably being the issues with the Reconstruction. It was proestant extremist fundementalists, to be sure, but you're getting the characters in the story all mixed up.
Makes you seem less credible when you mess up like that.
And you don't have to look that far back to get religious-based persecution...
Wait for it...
All you have to do is look at recent uproar over same-sex marriages.
</can of worms>
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:If you haven't noticed, Dagonee, I don't participate in "having the last word" contests.
No, you finish them, right? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you haven't noticed, Dagonee, I don't participate in "having the last word" contests.
No, you just drop into a thread, call people's posts jingoism, post unsubstantiated statements about what people say in specific threads, and then attempt to claim the rhetorical highground by dismissing those who challenge you as starting a '"having the last word" contest.'
Wow, that's even more obnoxious than your "let's make up a conspiracy with absolutely no evidence" game.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Go back to that thread and read what I actually wrote, which merely pointed out curiosities and coincidences hinting at a need for further investigation. Even very interesting data is never a conclusion. Any conclusion or conspiracy was purely a product of your interpretation of those curiosities.
Reminds me of JonBoy deciding that my pointing out that mini-nukes made the forbidden-line of usage upon tactical targets easier to cross -- which was all I said -- also meant I was opposed to preventing an attack on the US. Or various posters deciding that my merely providing some background info on the various issues involved in the Afghanistan and Iraq crisises meant either opposition or support on my part.
I am quite capable and willing to voice my opinion strongly and unambiguously whenever I actually have one. However, many times I am too close to swinging in either direction, and merely provide arguments to either and/or both sides of an issue. Heck, I even have a tendency of seeing third, fourth, fifth, etc sides to consider.
Betcha ya still haven't the foggiest clue as to my views on government surveillance of private activities.
[ February 13, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And the reason for putting those "curiosities and coincidences" in an utterly unrelated thread was?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Threads drift, just like this one.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sorry, John L. Went straight to page3 and missed the last two postings on the second page.
Here's a source agreeing with my statement concerning the KluKluxKlan. Use separation as keyword in your EditFind. There are others, just google "Klu Klux Klan" "Separation of Church and State" Catholic
"No, you finish them, right?"
I guess my statement was a bit misleading: somebody's gotta have the last word, and occasionally that somebody is me. (I've also temporarily killed a couple of fluff threads with jokes of dubious taste, which I had to delete before others decided to continue.) However, I do believe that 'having the last word' is not the same as 'winning a debate'.
What I meant is that I don't engage in circular argument for the sake of "winning". If I can't provide some new&different facts for fresh consideration, or provide a new link to sufficiently different phrasing from that already posted which might be clearer, I cease posting on the thread.
[ February 14, 2004, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I meant is that I don't engage in circular argument for the sake of "winning".
And yet you still refuse to either:
1) point out a post in this thread that said "this couldn't happen in America; or
2) admit that no one said what you said they said.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
That really bothers me. I know several women who wear veils and if they were forced not to, they would quit that school before expulsion even happened. I wonder how long this will last. I hope not indefinitely.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Rhaegar, I don't know what that means, and if you approved or are being sarcastic.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)