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.
posted
If you wear your pants down around your ankles, Twinky, I'm sorry to have offended you. I hope they let you in. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.'
posted
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
Heck, wearing veils and even headdresses is only mandated in the Qur'an for the wives of the Prophet, not for everyone else.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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)
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
posted
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 ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
That law does not apply because it isn't illegal to do that. The only thing they appealed to was CBS's authority.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pardon? I'm saying that bit didn't contain any information beyond of an appeal to authority in the form of DHR.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.)
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.)
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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" Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
