posted
Hi, y'all ! (yeah, I know this just might be the worst punch line in this aeon, but what the hell, I'll stick with it).
I write this topic in the hope that someday, somehow, Mr. Card is gonna stumble upon it and provide me with an answer. But since I don't believe that there are fat chances of this happening, I'll gladly settle with the answers that any of you would provide - especially if you're Americans. See, I just finished reading "Empire" and I must say that it was quite different from anything I had gotten used to expect from OSC. Not different in a bad way, mind you. Only, it's the first time that I read anything from him that has somekind of political background - I mean, current politics, not fictionnal ones. Furthermore, since this book deals with the topic of a civil war, there are a lot of issues that are dealt with, to say the least, a quite controversial tone. The role of the military, for instance. Or the foreign relations of America and it's role in the world.
At this point, I should probably precise that I'm not American - a fact that you had surely deduced already from the numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes I must have made up to this point. Don't worry, there will be more ; and I truly apologize for the whole lot of them - believe it or not, I'm trying my best to make this whole stuf at least bearable to read. Although this is gonna get a bit worse for you in the seconds to come, because while my un-Americanness was a flaw that could surely be somehow tolerated, I also have to tell you that, as a matter of fact, I'm French - which, I was told, amounts to being a cheese-eating communist who worships Satan and / or Al Qaeda and who wouldn't know how to use soap because, get this, the French don't shower. Oh, and we also burn American flags every morning before breakfast, but surely you knew about that too .
Anyway, and for those of you who are still reading, the reason for which I pointed out my nationality wasn't because I'm proud (or shameful, for that matter) about it ; but because it made "Empire" allthemore interesting to me. See, while most of the aforementioned prejudices about France are groundless (well, except for the cheese-eating, but nobody's perfect), we have one huge flaw when it comes to America : most of us, and I guess that this includes me, believe deeply that we "know better". That is to say that even though we lack both the hard and the soft power that America's got, we do know what America should do with it. Maybe better than Americans themselves.
Of course, nobody says it so bluntly. The talk, on this side of the Atlantic, is mainly that "you don't listen to the right people". Or that you vote for the wrong persons. As if we had a right to judge about it. There are a lot of reasons for this behavior, some better than others, but none strong enough to justify it, so I guess that we owe you a collective apology. However, this is not my point. What I meant to say was that by reading "Empire" and seeing America and the world through the eyes of characters who think in a very, very different way than mine - or than most of the French, for that matter ; I got a chance to take some distance. I guess that we are so similar that I have trouble understanding our differences, even if it seems silly when I write it. But that's what the book is about : understanding differences, bridging between people, trusting the moderates. Because, and that's the conclusion of OSC's afterwords, moderation is the only way for today's America to avoid an escalation of the antagonisms between the Left and the Right. Antagonisms that would probably not lead to a civil war, but that surely would be a burden for the country.
So, here comes my question. I agree entirely with OSC's conclusion. When you start thinking that anybody whose ideas contradict yours is either stupid, manipulated or evil ; you've become a fanatic. No matter what the ideas are. There's no arguing that. Also, when you divide a country between bunch of fanatics, you're preparing for a disaster. Even more so if these fanatics are not scattered as many local groups, but structured as two strongly established ways of thinking. In that respect, moderation - enlightened moderation - is undoutebly the answer. Taking the best from both sides while never demeaning them for thinking differently. Respecting the views of contradictors, and never viewing them as madmen for failing to see what you hold as an obvious truth. Fine. With all of this, you get stability. You get growth. But do you get progress ? Doesn't a country sometimes need idealistic madmen that will do the right thing ? Would History ever advance if everybody was moderated ? I mean, America was founded by idealists. By "fanatics" who believed that anybody who denied their freedom to the settlers was either wrong or evil, and had to be fought.
So I guess that this means that we need idealists. We need this kind of fanatic do-gooders. So where do we draw the line ? And more to the point, who gets to decide who's a benefactor and who's a dangerous madman ? I know that this sounds pretty naive, but I ask this question in the earnest way. This is a daily dilemna of the political life of any given country, and while I know how I feel about it, I'd be really interested in knowing how YOU would draw the line ; in America as well as in the world. I'm not trying to start a political debate, but rather to assess how people feel about these issues on the other side of the Atlantic.
Or we can also forget all of this if you don't feel like it, and just tell jokes. I know good ones. And most of them have nothing to do with cheese.
Anyway, thanks a lot to Orson for the great book, and I'm looking forward to your answers - if any. Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also have to tell you that, as a matter of fact, I'm French - which, I was told, amounts to being a cheese-eating communist who worships Satan and / or Al Qaeda and who wouldn't know how to use soap
I don't feel threatened. I stopped eating French Fries and am quite happy with my Freedom Fries...thank you very much.
quote:And more to the point, who gets to decide who's a benefactor and who's a dangerous madman ? I know that this sounds pretty naive, but I ask this question in the earnest way. This is a daily dilemna of the political life of any given country, and while I know how I feel about it, I'd be really interested in knowing how YOU would draw the line
Idealists who I consider benefactors are those who, by and large, incorporate everyone into their strategy or vision and attempt persuasion and reform, in contrast to ideologues whose primary technique is to rally the base by scapegoating and demonizing those who do not agree with them.
Dangerous madmen are something different. They have to actually be dangerous as opposed to just deluded. We have had a few people in government who were circumstantially dangerous madmen; my best example is whoever that guy was that Reagan essentially put in charge of tending and preserving the environment. He openly stated that we didn't have to because the approaching Rapture rendered that long-term concern moot.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: I don't feel threatened. I stopped eating French Fries and am quite happy with my Freedom Fries...thank you very much.
Spineless anti-war smelly cheese eating commie!
Hah... I actually heard about this whole Freedom Fries business, but I didn't know they still sold these.
Watch out : on the behalf on my country, I'm warning you that we might start a maneuver known by the diplomatic elites as "Sulking". And if you guys persist, we might even call you some names. And shed a few tears.
YE BE WARNED. Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks a lot for these kind words, Claudia - although I must confess that I had to look up "caveats" in a dictionary, so I guess that this shows I'm still having trouble with the English language
Samprimary : I'm not sure I get your point. Would that mean that the way you defend an ideology matters more than that ideology itself ? That if you defend it the right way you're a benefactor, no matter what it is that you actually advocate ? Or would this be only for those who are not dangerous madmen - in which case, my question remains the same : how d'you draw the line between those sane benefactors and those dangerous madmen ?
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't apologize. This way, I'm learning . And when I'll be sent in your country on a secret mission to make sure that the sales of the infamous Liberty Fries cease, so that the French Fries can get back in your plates where they belong, nobody'll be able to spot that I'm not a true American.
Except for the cheese-breath, maybe.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or would this be only for those who are not dangerous madmen - in which case, my question remains the same : how d'you draw the line between those sane benefactors and those dangerous madmen ?
There wouldn't be much of a line since there's a lot of shades inbetween true benefactors and dangerous madmen. It's not like it's a binary split.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:how d'you draw the line between those sane benefactors and those dangerous madmen ?
I've given this a fair bit of thought lately. Because it IS the case that some philosophies are evil or harmful and should not be tolerated, and it should be possible for someone to say so without automatically being a destroyer.
Consider the situation in France right now, where in an effort to avoid future toxicity they are doing their best to stamp out any and all expressions of Islamic culture. Or consider Germany, where it's still illegal to display a swastika. Why should these things be? Are they really necessary measures? And how extreme, really, are they in a world where real extremity can mean death or mutilation?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Consider the situation in France right now, where in an effort to avoid future toxicity they are doing their best to stamp out any and all expressions of Islamic culture.
I'm really interested in what you wrote... maybe this is what it looks like from the outside, but from the inside, it doesn't feel that way. So it'd be really nice if you could provide me with anything that documents or describes this "stamping out" of the islamic culture - so that I can know what you are talking about .
quote: Why should these things be? Are they really necessary measures? And how extreme, really, are they in a world where real extremity can mean death or mutilation? [/QB]
My point exactly. A fair trade-off has to be found between liberty and security. Hence my question : where would you personally draw the line ?
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: There wouldn't be much of a line since there's a lot of shades inbetween true benefactors and dangerous madmen. It's not like it's a binary split.
I agree with that. But yet, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Or more to the point, we actually do it everyday. We decide for ourselves which ones are those madmen, and which ones we ought to trust. We of course do not all share the same criteria, of course - otherwise the world would be a quieter place, although not necessary a better one - but we do all have our own.
So, well, maybe this is a blunt and /or too personnal question (and I'll understand if you don't want to answer), but which are yours ? Aside, of course, from the way these people advocate their causes.
(and oops, I should've just posted one reply instead of two. Sorry 'bout that).
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who correcly uses "un-Americanness" or anything similar in a sentence has a good enough grasp of the English language as far as I'm concerned. I don't think you have anything to apologize for.
quote:I'm really interested in what you wrote... maybe this is what it looks like from the outside, but from the inside, it doesn't feel that way. So it'd be really nice if you could provide me with anything that documents or describes this "stamping out" of the islamic culture - so that I can know what you are talking about
I'd say that goes anywhere from what could be considered benign stuff like outlawing headscarves to more complicated and serious things like the state of Islamic youth in your country. A large number of those rioting young people in the ghettos around France's major cities are unemployed, and very pissed off, Islamic immigrants or even second generation Muslims. I don't think you can deny that there's a pretty serious conflict occurring and snowballing in France right now between xenophobes and the immigrants themselves.
France is a country that, since the advent of real nation states, that is to say, a person saying they are from France, and fight for France, rather than for a land holder, or for money, or as a slave, has always been rather wary of anything that does damage to their (forgive the metaphor to follow) national tapestry. France has never been a nation that welcomes large amounts of immigrants and as such has little national ability to absorb multicultural immigrants into that fabric. A not so recent but perfect glaring examples come from France recruiting soldiers from Algeria during WWII and other French colonial holdings to fight for France and then denying them any sorts of rights in the country afterwards. The concept of the French Foreign Legion is a quirky and outside the box anomaly in the mix though. On the one hand, you reserve all the most dangerous, deadly and risky jobs for people that are not French, but are something akin to mercenaries for the French government. And on the other hand, if these people do these things for you, you give them a new name, life and French citizenship at the end of their service. Citizenship for service is something that we here in America have recently been criticized for not doing, with respect for Hispanic soldiers in the army.
There's nothing wrong with national pride, and the French certainly don't lack there, and I dont't necessarily think there is anything automatically wrong with not being good at absorbing foreign peoples unlike yourself. To use perhaps the perfect example for this board, it's a question of Utlannings vs. Framlings.
I think France is having a very hard time dealing with the massive influx of foreign peoples, a large portion of which happen to be Muslim, and I think there is a fear there of the deterioration of French culture at the hands of Muslim Framlings. And I think that fear is driving a host of anti-framling (regardless of where they are from) behaviors and legislation into being.
That's an outside observer's point of view.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Lyrhawn, and thanks for your answer . And the really interesting point about all of this is the fact that I hadn't even thought of the whole scarf issue, for instance, because it's so natural in here that it actually didn't come to mind.
As always, the outsider's point of view proves to be an interesting one, if only because it challenges the views of the insiders and leads them to question themselves. Which is what your answer did for me. But even though saying that there is no integration problem in France would be denying the obvious, I feel that there are at least to ways to view all of this, and since you stated one of them, I'll just lay out the other - the more "French" one. Or at least, I'll try to .
The way we see it, we're not trying at all to stamp out signs of islamism. Or of any other religion, for that matter. All this "scarf issue" stems from a French decision dating back from the early XXth century, that separated the church from the State. Since then, the French Republic has been laic, and this is a point that's very important to us. The State has to be a-religious, but he also must authorize the preaching and the belief in all religions (as long as they do not aim at harming the believers, which rules out suicidal sects or other loonies). It's our vision of equity : the State doesn't take any side, it just oversees the cohabitation of all the religions - and all the citizen. Because of this, no state official, no state employee is ever allowed to display a religious sign (no matter the religion), unless it's something really small an not noticeable (such as a small pendant, for instance).
And kids also have to apply this rule when they're at school, not because they're State officials, but because they're in a State-owned space where they're being taught also about laicity. While some private schools authorize or require their students to harbor religious signs, (such as the scarf), public school doesn't. So no scarf, but also no kippa, no ostensible cross pendant, or whatever. No one tells them that they should denounce their beliefs, or that their parents are wrong. It's just meant as a way to integrate them all better to the group : when they're at school, they're not christian, jews, mormons, muslims or whatso, but just French kids. And actually, lots of pepole believe that if we let go of that, it would probably make things worse - because we would foster the communautarisms that are already stemming.
Of course, I can understand how one could disagree with that. It's not like it's the only way to deal with diversity . But aside from that, and regarding the issue of the riots, it's not a matter of islamism versus the Republic, but rather of the suburbs versus the Republic. We have a really serious issue of integration, but on this matter at least, I don't think that it has anything to do with the religious or the racial factor. Lots of people from different origins live in the suburbs, and the riots were not especially related to one or two of these ethnics groups.
Now, you're right about the fact that we have racists in France. And the 2002 elections showed that they couldn't be unaccounted for. But still, they're a real minority. There are racial issues, of course, but I think that they're the same as everywhere else. I mean... even though I don't believe it, the footage we get in France about the way Arabic or Black Americans may be treated depicts a quite worrying situation. I know it's actually not as bad as the media or the scoop-hungry reporters would like us to believe. Maybe, on that matter, we all tend to believe that things are worse elsewhere - simply because we don't see what's going on in there, while we feel like we know what's going on where we live. Then again, I might be wrong about this and maybe France is facing an especially strong racism problem, but if this is the case, I must confess that I fail to see it.
As for integration, it's funny that you say that "France has never been a nation that welcomes large amounts of immigrants". Not that it isn't true, of course, because I don't have any figures to countradict that, so your guess is as good as mine. But what's interesting is that here, our speech is quite the reverse. We're being raised and taught by people who tell us that France is a land of integration, where people have always come from far away places and settled. Of course, the example of Algeria goes against this argumentation - and we're not done with paying for the mistakes we did at that time. But this was a quite unique occurence. For instance, both of our other northern african colonies of the time, Tunisia and Morocco, were granted independency without any turmoil, and are still on very good terms with us. And there was no issues of citizenship with them.
This was an insider's point of view ; but once again, I'm not implying that it's worth anything more than an outsider's. I just feel like it's interesting to compare them both. At least, it was for me. Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, it IS interesting. I think you can see between the two views a totally different way of looking at a single situation.
I think I might have used the wrong word when I said "welcomes." I think "has had to deal with" would have been better, because "welcomes" puts a negative value on France's willingness to even deal with it. The reason I wanted to fix that is because it's not even about France's willingness in the past to integrate foreign peoples into French society, it's about whether they've even had to deal with it at all. I think historically it's never been a real problem because it's never really even been a thing. I can't think of a time in France's history (and take that with a grain of salt, I'm not a huge French history buff) where they've come close to having to deal with the numbers currently flooding the country. I think it's something new that France is trying with mixed success to deal with. Given the EU's open border policy, I don't see any way to undo what is to come as far as the mixing of peoples in Europe. I think the entire continent is going to have to come to grips with integration and assimilation, but I think they'll be fine.
I think from my point of view, what jumps out the most to me is your view on the head scarves.
I think there might be a little disconnect between this:
quote:So no scarf, but also no kippa, no ostensible cross pendant, or whatever. No one tells them that they should denounce their beliefs, or that their parents are wrong. It's just meant as a way to integrate them all better to the group : when they're at school, they're not christian, jews, mormons, muslims or whatso, but just French kids.
and this:
quote:Of course, I can understand how one could disagree with that. It's not like it's the only way to deal with diversity
I don't think that solution addresses diversity at all. By removing many of the things that make these children unique from each other, you remove their diversity, or at least some of it, in an attempt to mold them into a single, French, areligious cultural identity. The closest thing I can think of to that particular debate here is school uniforms. A lot of people believe that school uniforms will bridge some of the gap between what differentiates kids, since differences can often breed cliques and unhealthy social behavior that resuls in bullying, depression, etc. So they take away the kids' ability to dress themselves, and in a way express themselves, and reward them with a sort of whitewashing.
I won't take the argument to the next level and say which way I think is better, because I think the interesting part isn't in the way you're tackling the problem, but the way you view it to begin with. I think in America, we strive (and often fail) to celebrate our differences and weave them into a single narrative. To me it looks like your attempt is to say, "be whatever you want at home, but at school, you're all the same." Which is more like having them all memorize a prescribed narrative that's already written. It's the difference between putting blue and yellow together and celebrating green, and telling everyone to just be yellow.
Maybe I took that too far. Sorry, I'm in a quirky mood tonight.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi, Clem! Welcome to Hatrack. I must say, there's no need to apologize for your English; although I knew you were French from your first line: the space before the exclamation sign gave you away.
May I ask where in France do you live? I'm in Villeurbanne (Lyon).
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn : well, I understand your point. I know that the way we deal with this is totally different from the way you guys deal with it in the US. Once again, I guess that this stems from the laic culture, something that's a real difference between our two countries. I won't try to argue in the favor of the French way of doing this, because it would be quite pointless - there's no need for us to agree on this, I think that acknowledging the differences is something that's far more interesting. But it seems important to me to point out that while we may "telling everyone to be yellow" in school, we actually rejoice in diversity everywhere else. The State helps in the building of religious buildings (churches, but also mosques or temples) ; measures are taken to hinder any discrimination that could be put in effect by xenophobists (notably in the field of recruitment) ; & so on.
But it's true that we believe that school should ba a a-religious place. And while school uniforms have never been implemented in France, I guess that, yeah, this is the same kind of measure.
Corwin : Hi, and thanks as for your question, I live in Paris. Are you French too, or are you an expat living in Villeurbanne ? (which would be quite unusual ).
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi clem, I actually read your long post, a first for me. What are your views on the Iraq war, or our foreingn policy, you're right it is interesting to hear views from outsiders/insiders.
posted
Clem: I'm Romanian. I went to university here in France and now I work here. If I remember correctly there are/were three French posters on Hatrack, but I haven't spent much time here lately so I don't know if they still post. Pretty sure at least two of them don't. Anyway, I'd be glad to meet you if you ever come to Lyon. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey T:man Well, since I stated that I don't mean to start a political debate, I'll answer your question on a tone that's as neutral as possible, and I just want to make it clear before I say anything that I do not attempt to convince anybody here of the superiority of my views compared to other's. As for the issue of the scarf, I'm pretty sure that as an outsider, my opinions must be disconnected with the realities that you face on your daily lives.
Anyway, and to keep this short : * I was actually against the Iraq war. Not only because I didn't think, at that time (and I still don't think it now) that Iraq was a haven for Al Qaeda, but also because I thought (and I still do) that this war wouldn't generate the stability it was meant to create (in Iraq, or in the Middle-East). I feared that the US would get stuck in a whole new kind of quagmire, and from an outsider's point of view, it seems that this is what happened. Then again, you guys surely view things differently from the inside - and I'd be interested in knowing your position on this issue.
* As for America's foreign policy, well, it's a too big issue for a few short sentences, so I apologize for the fact that I'll only adress a few of it aspects. One, in fact. I'm quite unsure about unilateralism. Of course, being in a position of power, it is only normal that America uses it to decide for itself and to avoid foreign interference. But since America's actions have an impact on the whole world, I believe that it is only normal for the whole world to give an opinion about what America should do. And while it's understandable for America not to listen, it seems quite dangerous to me to sometimes go against the wills of most countries in the world, including faithful allies. Even superpowers cannot always act alone, in my opinion. Of course, acting against the will of allies won't turn them into enemies (hell, France remained an ally of the US even after the disagreement about the Iraq war ; and there was no doubt about it, at least on the level of the higher-ups), it does make future collective action harder, because negotiation is officially discarded. It sounds like a "Shut up and do as we say ; or talk and stay behind" policy. Understandably, it raises doubt. But I must say that during last year, Ms. Rice's actions showed a will to ease up a little on this regard, and to show more consideration for both allies and foes. I really believe that this is a good think, not only for the world as a whole, but also for the US themselves.
There are lot of other issues, of course. And I believe that they're all interesting to discuss. But this is the first thing that came to mind when I started thinking about this topic, and I believe that it's probably because it's the root of some of the other disagreements that we might have.
But this doesn't mean in any way that I believe that America's policies are, on the whole, bad ones. On lots of issues, I do agree with what you do. It's just that we were talking about differences and that therefore, I kept on going on this topic.
Anyway, I hope that my answers, albeit short, were of any interest to you. And thanx for reading the long post ! Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to note that, contrary to popular stereotype, everyone my wife and I encountered in France (including Paris) last time we were in Europe was very polite and helpful. The rudest person we met on the trip was the British Chunnel bus driver.
Oh, and whatever they're called, as long as fries remain a staple of the American diet, people who dislike Americans have reason to rejoice.
Welcome to Hatrack, Clem.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I love cheese. Even (maybe especially) French cheese. But I've never had Romanian cheese, so I don't know if I want to talk to Corwin.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an astonishingly awesome first thread.
Hi. We hope more of your ilk will join Hatrack.
Lyr said most of what I would have said, and probably better.
I'll just add that my definition of "division of church and state" would dictate that the state could not preach religion but nor should they interfere with personal expressions of religion-- including wearing religious garb/symbols. The head scarf (and for that matter, the kippah) are not the same as a cross. Christians are not MANDATED by their religion (or their understanding of their religion) to wear a symbol of religious expression, or sin (with the exception of Christian women who only wear long dresses and/or cover their hair, I suppose.) Muslim and Jewish women who cover their hair, and Jewish men who wear a head covering, and Sikh men who wear turbans, etc., have a MANDATE from their religion to do so. If you say their religion shouldn't mandate it, or that they should follow a less strict interpretation of their religion, then you are interfering with their religion. If you say that they may not wear their symbols in public, then you are interfering with their observance of their religion. If you say that they may not access public services if they wear such symbols, then you are forcing them to choose between public services and religious observance. In any of those cases, I'd say the state is right up in the middle of religion-- not separated from it at all.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
However, I'm not sure whether the state should have the right to interfere with religious practices if there is a secular benefit to doing so. I suppose I'd judge each case on its merits. For instance, I support putting everyone at the airport through the same security screening (that screening being a function/service of the government) even if their religion forbids them from getting x-rayed.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say the "secular purpose" would have to be an absolute need-- for public safety, or similar reasons-- and that alternative measures would have to be found. (And you're not x-rayed at the airport.)
If your religion forbids you going through metal detectors, for some reason, they should provide an alternate screening (visual/patdown) that you can submit to instead.
If your religion forbids a pat-down by a security guard of the opposite sex, they should provide one of the same sex. Etc.
These requirements needn't apply to private businesses, btw, only security screenings in publicly-owned places. And the people who were affected could choose not to use private businesses that did not accomodate their beliefs.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks a lot, everyone. It feels really good to get such a nice greeting - and interesting answers to go with it .
Corwin : I'll actually go to Lyon quite often during the months to come (starting mid-september), so if you want us to have a cup of coffee sometime, it'll be a pleasure ! Oh, and don't bring cheese to the US. If you take this in a plane, people might put you into jail on the charges of allegedly plotting an attack with a biological weapon. And given the state a camembert would find itself in after 15 hours in a bag, they probably wouldn't be wrong, too. Unless romanian cheese is especially well suited for conservation
T:man : if you send this to Iraq, you might be guilty of many deaths - at least by heart attacks
Sterling : honestly, fries - no matter the name they're given - are also becoming an unavoidable part of the French diet, so I guess that we're stuck in the same boat. (... not sure that this expression exists in English, but I guess that it's meaning is pretty clear anyway).
ketchupqueen : I guess there's no disagreeing with your point : it is disturbing to ask people to temporarly throw away part of their beliefs in order to get an acces to the public education system. But as scifibum points out, we believe that the outcome is worth the sacrifice ; because it's an integrating system that (until recently) has seemed to work pretty well for us. Maybe it is now the time to make some changes in order to adapt with the new realities France is confronted with, but I guess that the scarf is not gonna be allowed in school any time soon. This would cause quite a ruckus around here - even though I understand how absurd this can seem for someone who hasn't been raised in France. And maybe it is indeed absurd - I don't know, I'm not exactly objective about this whole issue. Anyway, it's really interesting to read opinions that directly countradict the way we think around here. So thanks again for taking the time to answer !
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'd say the "secular purpose" would have to be an absolute need-- for public safety, or similar reasons-- and that alternative measures would have to be found. (And you're not x-rayed at the airport.)
If your religion forbids you going through metal detectors, for some reason, they should provide an alternate screening (visual/patdown) that you can submit to instead.
If your religion forbids a pat-down by a security guard of the opposite sex, they should provide one of the same sex. Etc.
These requirements needn't apply to private businesses, btw, only security screenings in publicly-owned places. And the people who were affected could choose not to use private businesses that did not accomodate their beliefs.
Heh, did I say x-ray?
I disagree that the security procedures should accommodate religious beliefs. Everyone should go through the same procedures. (Luckily opposite sex pat-downs and strip searches are already avoided I think for non-religious reasons.) Incurring additional cost to develop and be ready to perform different procedures for different religions is a waste of money and a stamp of legitimacy from the government for the accommodated religions, IMO.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the alternate is already provided for-- that's what they do when you fail the inital and close-up wand screenings. The number of people would be so small, that it wouldn't really cause that much more work to the people ALREADY hired to do the job. (And that's what I meant to say, I forgot a few key words-- accomodations should be made WHEN REASONABLE. I think providing an alternate screening method using methods and people already in play is reasonable. Also, no new security measures should be made where an alternative is NOT available for those who can't comply and it interferes with the rights or needs of some individuals.)
As for a stamp of legitimacy, I disagree. The government has no right to say whether someone's religion is "legitimate" or not, even if they're a devout Pastafarian. The government has an obligation to respect all religious beliefs equally, as long as they're not violating safety or harming innocents or whatever. Of course the stipulation is that they should have proven through prior actions that they are devout, like how you can't get an exemption from the draft for religious reasons just by claiming it, if you haven't lived your life in accordance with your professed beliefs to the point where you have religious leaders to vouch for that.
(For instance, the FLDS thing. I don't think the gov't should prohibit polygamy; I do think they should protect from underage and especially forced marriages. Protecting innocents is the key, not saying how they should marry if they devoutly believe in a religion that says otherwise.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clem, I wish that I could speak and write in French even 1/10 as well as you speak and write in English. I studied French for 4 years in high school, but due to not encountering the language on a regular basis for the last 9 years have since forgotten much of the language. I recently watched a movie from France (with subtitles in English), but found it difficult to follow along with the conversation; something that I once was able to do rather well!
I also would like to add my agreement that your first post/topic is wonderful. It has been a joy to begin to understand your perspective on matters, and your humility is enviable. I look forward to your input in many more of our conversations.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, I agree with what I now understand to be your position on security screening.
On other types of accommodation in other situations - I would really need to know details. I would generally be against religious accommodations that incur any significant incremental cost in providing government services. For instance, I don't think government cheese should be provided in kosher form if it costs detectably more.
Edit: and before anyone asks, I'm not saying that I think the current security screening and government cheese are great ideas as is. That's not my point - my point is that I think government should operate mostly without regard for religion. For example - I think that the religious tax exemption should probably end (although I'd be fine with religions operating non profit companies that would otherwise qualify for tax exemptions on the same grounds as secular organizations).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
scifibum, if you look up WIC foods, most of the foods provided on WIC ARE kosher. At least some foods in each category provided are kosher, at least. For instance, certain juices they contract with are kosher. As far as the cheese, what they do is, if you keep kosher and can't eat the cheese contracted because it's not kosher, they will swap out your cheese allowance for something else (for instance, you get more milk and/or lentils or beans instead.) In that way, they don't pay more for kosher cheese (which is indeed more expensive), but still provide comparable amounts of nutritious food, while accomodating a kosher diet.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
