Religion - Put it in it's place

[Silver_Owl]

Because this is an interesting and relevant topic I thought I'd create a new one.

Quote:
As for the Islamic scarves, I back the French government. I'd go further and remove all religious symbols from schools. Faith is matter for a private individual and should not be pushed into the public sector.

Do what you like in your homes and your places of worship ... but let's keep it out of the public eye.



So are you saying if you were a Sikh, and you had long hair and a turban because of your religion, you would tell them they would have to get rid of their turban and cut their hair if you want to go to school. It happend to my brother years ago but he told his headmaster to "get f***ed you facist, ignorant tosser", and no he did not get expelled or let the headmaster have his way.

My expirence was the turban got people interested in my religion rather than frighten them off. If people wanted to ask me questions I was happy to answer them but I did not preach!!.

My point is the turban signifies the Sikh identity, and if you take that away you are taking that identity away from them. What really is the problem with the islamic headscarf?, I thought you were to judge and treat people by their heart and not appearance!!

[Thrash Harry]

This could develop into an interesting debate, but also has the potential to be more explosive than the grammar grenade. Didn't I hear that the authorities had forgotten to include the turban in their list of banned religious symbols, which offended the Sikhs even more? You can't beat a French farce.

[andymackem]

My point is the turban signifies the Sikh identity, and if you take that away you are taking that identity away from them. What really is the problem with the islamic headscarf?, I thought you were to judge and treat people by their heart and not appearance!!

OK, I started it

I think your last sentence rather answer your question, though. What is the purpose of public displays of religious apparel, other than to generate a kind of self-ghettoisation? Is it not the same as football fans wearing their teams' colours - a gesture that combines narrow solidarity with profound seperatism?

If you didn't wear a turban, would your heart be any less Sikh? Surely you _are_ effectively judging by appearance by requiring followers of your faith to dress in a certain fashion. Perhaps you can explain to me why the turban is required and what it actually means in terms of your faith (I must confess I know very little of Sikhism).

On a related point, when I was a reporter on a paper in West London (Hounslow) there was a big furore about kids bringing "knives" into schools. This turned out to be about the Sikh "Kirpan", and caused a load of upset. I wasn't working on that story myself (I was at the other end of the borough annoying Tory councillors ) but it quickly degenerated into a preposterous debate. The bloke saying you could just as easily stab someone with a crucifix really sticks in my mind.

Comments like that led me towards my current viewpoint that adopting symbolism creates the mindset of a "secret society" and introduces a further element of clannish and cultish behaviour into what is already a fragmented society.

I'm not trying to attack any specific faith here so please don't feel I'm having a go at Sikhism on purpose. I'm just trying to answer your point from a philosophical point of view rather than promulgate a purge of all religions.

But I'd still say the most valid objection to the Islamic Scarf law is not that it restricts the freedom of people to wear what they want (I'd rather not wear a shirt and tie to work, but I doubt I'd get away with the scruffy jeans and t-shirt look for long - should I demand the right to express myself as I choose or accept that my appearance is part of my job?). The problem is simply whether it is worth the hassle of changing the law. Does the public benefit make it worth the aggravation it is causing? I'm not at all convinced that it does.

Tin hat on .....

[randdebiel²]

which agravation are you talking of?
the public benefit is huge...especially for the girls themselves....nobody can foce them to wear it anymore because it's illegal, it's a giant step towards liberalisation of girls from muslim origin (mind you I deliberately don't use the word muslim girls, because one of the main problems is just that most girls that are forced to wear the scarf aren't even muslim, but only iof muslim origine, something the mullahs in france purposedly omit when they talk about "our girls")
there's a problem for the minority that wear them out of their own choice, but let's be serious, how can you make a religious choice when you're 12? you don't have the maturity yet.....
for the other symbols, I don't think it's the same, and they don't bother me....except, you can't prohibit one without the others, even though you should.....is it a huge cost? for the sikhs probably yes, and maybe there should be an exception for them...for the other ones, I don't think so.....

[Padstar]

I was once asked if i belived in Jesus Christ.... but i didnt know who he played for....

Padds.

[hallucienate]

I was once asked if i belived in Jesus Christ.... but i didnt know who he played for....

Padds.

Sounds like a Mexican name to me.

[Loki]

adopting symbolism creates the mindset of a "secret society" and introduces a further element of clannish and cultish behaviour

Isn't that why we all bought Heartland t-shirts?

[andymackem]

which agravation are you talking of?
the public benefit is huge...especially for the girls themselves....nobody can foce them to wear it anymore because it's illegal, it's a giant step towards liberalisation of girls from muslim origin (mind you I deliberately don't use the word muslim girls, because one of the main problems is just that most girls that are forced to wear the scarf aren't even muslim, but only iof muslim origine, something the mullahs in france purposedly omit when they talk about "our girls")
there's a problem for the minority that wear them out of their own choice, but let's be serious, how can you make a religious choice when you're 12? you don't have the maturity yet.....
for the other symbols, I don't think it's the same, and they don't bother me....except, you can't prohibit one without the others, even though you should.....is it a huge cost? for the sikhs probably yes, and maybe there should be an exception for them...for the other ones, I don't think so.....

The aggravation that has prompted debate on here, and elsewhere. The aggravation that has encouraged Muslims throughout the world to march against this new law.

Clearly the actions of the French government have upset some people, hence the widespread debate those actions have prompted.

And the public benefit?

I'm still not sure. Do we abolish any public expression of religion?If so, will the French agree to demolish Notre Dame? It is designed on medieval cruciform lines (the floor plan is in the shape of a cross) and is therefore a religious symbol in a public place.

Alternatively, do we pick and choose the ones we want? Un pays, un peuple, une gouvernement, peut-etre?

The argument about "liberalising" women from Islam will run on for as long as we have organised religions. People of Islamic background will continue to face these issues regardless of what the law says. The population at large is unaffected by whether people are wearing headscarves or bikinis (beyond crude aesthetic considerations, at least ). Prohibitive laws should be there to protect the reasonable rights of the masses. (Note the distinction between prohibitive and permissive laws. Legislation which enshrines the reasonable rights of minority groups is rather different).

So my point is that the French law is sensible if extended to remove any public expression of organised religion (desirable IMHO), but futile if it is a one-off ruling against a specific faith which merely engenders a sense of grievance and prejudice.

Since my ideal aim isn't practical, I can't see much merit in the French legislation. Were my target to be attainable it would be a valid first step. And no, I don't think there's an inherent logical contradiction.

[andymackem]

I was once asked if i belived in Jesus Christ.... but i didnt know who he played for....

Padds.

Sounds like a Mexican name to me.

There was a Jesus Seba who played a few games for Wigan Athletic. He was in all sorts of trouble on crosses, but inspired a load of comebacks.

I'll get my coat.

(There really was though, along with Isidrio Diaz and Roberto Martinez. They joined from Real Zaragoza and were immediately dubbed the Three Amigos. Martinez was the most successful player and now works as a summariser for Sky's Primera Liga coverage, along with Guillem Balague.)

I'll get my anorak as well.

[MrChris]

I'm all for public displays of anything that doesn't scare children. The idea that the French state is secular is ridiculous. It's a semi-secularised Christian state. French workers get Sunday off, and Christmas, not Friday and Eid. The power of the majority masquerading under the guise of neutrality, as it so often is. Go on, swing your crucifixes, and shake your turbans, and create a cacophonous multiplicity of noise and colour. It's an order.

[andymackem]

I'm all for public displays of anything that doesn't scare children. The idea that the French state is secular is ridiculous. It's a semi-secularised Christian state. French workers get Sunday off, and Christmas, not Friday and Eid. The power of the majority masquerading under the guise of neutrality, as it so often is. Go on, swing your crucifixes, and shake your turbans, and create a cacophonous multiplicity of noise and colour. It's an order.

Yes. Let's all parcel ourselves up into individual ghettoised cults, each of which is convinced of its inherent superiority over any other.

Great idea

Trouble is, any religion is effectively geared to be intolerant towards the others. By definition you cannot be anything other than the chosen people which gives you a huge superiority complex. The only way to avoid this is to fail to take your religion seriously. Far from promoting diversity it promotes division.

[_emma_]

I think people anywhere in the world should be allowed to dress the way they want to. No matter if it has anything to do with religion, football, music, or anything else. Being free to decide about the way you look is in my opinion one of the basic human rights. I thought it was obvious!

[markfiend]

Trouble is, any religion is effectively geared to be intolerant towards the others. By definition you cannot be anything other than the chosen people which gives you a huge superiority complex. The only way to avoid this is to fail to take your religion seriously. Far from promoting diversity it promotes division.

I would wholeheartedly agree with this. The problem comes IMO when the religious bigots fighting for "freedom of religion" use the power they gain to attack segments of society with which they disagree. One need only look at the bombings of abortion clinics to see what I mean.

The religious right in the USA, by weilding their religious freedom (to the exclusion of everyone else's) have also made it effectively impossible to teach evolutionary theory in American schools. Now when your religious freedom actively denies students access to valuable education then it becomes tyranny.

[MrChris]

I agree with Andymacken and Markfiend about the dangers of highly politicised and exclusionary religion. Hey, I've always been an atheist too, and find the christian right as scary as anyone else. But my point was that since the French state is NOT de facto secular, the new law simply and unjustifiably discriminates against various minorities, simply because they are minorities.

The only two options are to allow public displays like this FOR EVERYONE, or become a totally secular state. I don't know what a totally secular state would look like, because there aren't any, but I do know that the existing structure of weekends and bank holidays would not feature in it.

I personally choose the former.

[markfiend]

...But my point was that since the French state is NOT de facto secular, the new law simply and unjustifiably discriminates against various minorities, simply because they are minorities.

Oh right, get you. Yes, I agree with that.

The only two options are to allow public displays like this FOR EVERYONE, or become a totally secular state. I don't know what a totally secular state would look like, because there aren't any, but I do know that the existing structure of weekends and bank holidays would not feature in it.

I personally choose the former.

No weekends or holidays? Former for me too.

Aside: "Holiday" is derived from "holy-day" so we wouldn't even have the word without religion!

[emilystrange]

I hate my religion. it brought me no comfort as a child, only warnings and threats for the afterlife.
i gave up before i left my religious school before 14, and now i just cant abide it.
I am interested in religions and their structure and mythology though. but no matter what i believe, i wont ever let myself become immersed in it again.

[MrChris]

Hmmm, I feel similar. I remember being fascinated by Norse mythology in particular, probably because I was a wee boy and it was very bloody and violent. I also had a soft spot for Anansie the Spider God. But for me, it's just a well-told story, at best a morality tale. But nothing more.

Speaking of which, anyone read Neil Gaiman's American Gods?

[markfiend]

Hmmm, I feel similar. I remember being fascinated by Norse mythology in particular, probably because I was a wee boy and it was very bloody and violent. I also had a soft spot for Anansie the Spider God. But for me, it's just a well-told story, at best a morality tale. But nothing more.

Speaking of which, anyone read Neil Gaiman's American Gods?

I was quite into a bit of Norse as well. (Norse BTW is still practiced as Asatru.)

Not read American Gods, but various deities popped up in the Sandman from time to time.

[paint it black]

think this is the best explanation around

Stained glass windows keep the cold outside
While the hypocrites hide inside
With the lies of statues in their minds
Where the Christian religion made them blind
Where they hide
And prey to the God of a bitch spelled backwards is dog
Not for one race, one creed, one world
But for money
Effective
Absurd

This is religion
There's a liar on the altar
The sermon never falter
This is religion

Do you pray to the Holy Ghost when you suck your host
Do you read who's dead in the Irish Post
Do you give away the cash you can't afford
On bended knees and pray to lord
Fat pig priest
Sanctimonious smiles
He takes the money
You take the lies

This is religion
A liar on the altar
Sermon never falter
This is religion

This is religion and Jesus Christ
This is religion cheaply priced
This is bibles full of libel
This is sin in eternal hymn
This is what they've done
This is your religion
The apostles were eleven
Now there's a sod in Heaven

This is religion
Liar on the altar
The sermon never falter
This is religion

This is religion
This is religion
This is religion
This is religion

This is religion
A liar on the altar
A sermon never falter
This is religion

This is religion
Your religion
And it's all falling to bits gloriously
This is religion

....and I love the idea of the Sabbath being canceled because the church can't compete with a consumer society.


Anyone else reading about the Asian boy who was forced to dress as a black cloud and the rest of the class as white clouds. Ho hum, the world's gone mad

[Thrash Harry]

Personally, I find it impossible to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient yet benevolent being. If it does exist and I end up meeting it somehow, then its gonna get one hell of a slap for all the grief it's put me through. However, my parents are both practising Catholics and I have a lot of respect for them and, therefore, their beliefs.

As for political correctness, I spent the first ten years of my career working for a charity and a local government, both of which were overrun by Greenham Common politics. I daren't open my mouth most of the time for fear of being hauled up in front of the equal opportunities commission.

[Loki]

think this is the best explanation around

Stained glass windows keep the cold outside
While the hypocrites hide inside
With the lies of statues in their minds
Where the Christian religion made them blind
Where they hide
And prey to the God of a bitch spelled backwards is dog
Not for one race, one creed, one world
But for money
Effective
Absurd

This is religion
There's a liar on the altar
The sermon never falter
This is religion

Do you pray to the Holy Ghost when you suck your host
Do you read who's dead in the Irish Post
Do you give away the cash you can't afford
On bended knees and pray to lord
Fat pig priest
Sanctimonious smiles
He takes the money
You take the lies

This is religion
A liar on the altar
Sermon never falter
This is religion

This is religion and Jesus Christ
This is religion cheaply priced
This is bibles full of libel
This is sin in eternal hymn
This is what they've done
This is your religion
The apostles were eleven
Now there's a sod in Heaven

This is religion
Liar on the altar
The sermon never falter
This is religion

This is religion
This is religion
This is religion
This is religion

This is religion
A liar on the altar
A sermon never falter
This is religion

This is religion
Your religion
And it's all falling to bits gloriously
This is religion

You just can't keep a good man down. Not even in the jungle.

[mayhem]

Despite the best efforts of the nuns I am an atheist too. But just as I would hate anyone to tell me I must cover my head I don't think it's right to tell other women or girls they must not.

When it gets to the more extreme face coverings I do find it disturbing as it seems to rob the woman of her identity- she can only be identified in relation to the male accompanying her.

But a Muslim friend of mine told me that none of this is actually specified in the Koran any more than a lot of the stuff Christians come out with relates to what Jesus is supposed to have said. Just people trying to exercise control over others as usual.

[randdebiel²]

1)The aggravation that has prompted debate on here, and elsewhere. The aggravation that has encouraged Muslims throughout the world to march against this new law.
Clearly the actions of the French government have upset some people, hence the widespread debate those actions have prompted.

And the public benefit?

2)I'm still not sure. Do we abolish any public expression of religion?If so, will the French agree to demolish Notre Dame? It is designed on medieval cruciform lines (the floor plan is in the shape of a cross) and is therefore a religious symbol in a public place.

3)Alternatively, do we pick and choose the ones we want? Un pays, un peuple, une gouvernement, peut-etre?

2)The argument about "liberalising" women from Islam will run on for as long as we have organised religions. People of Islamic background will continue to face these issues regardless of what the law says. The population at large is unaffected by whether people are wearing headscarves or bikinis (beyond crude aesthetic considerations, at least ). Prohibitive laws should be there to protect the reasonable rights of the masses. (Note the distinction between prohibitive and permissive laws. Legislation which enshrines the reasonable rights of minority groups is rather different).

So my point is that the French law is sensible if extended to remove any public expression of organised religion (desirable IMHO), but futile if it is a one-off ruling against a specific faith which merely engenders a sense of grievance and prejudice.

Since my ideal aim isn't practical, I can't see much merit in the French legislation. Were my target to be attainable it would be a valid first step. And no, I don't think there's an inherent logical contradiction.

1)of course it has, is that a reason not to do it? why should it be?
2)No, only visible religious symbols IN SCHOOL where there's really no place for them....you have freedom of religion (they don't demolish the mosquees either you know....), but it doesn't mean school would be the place to make religious statements....btw, why don't muslim men wear the traditional clothes the Koran ask them to, but the girls have to?

3)No, it will only continue as long as some religions won't accept division of church(in a general sense) and state....for example the situation of muslim girls in Morocco is much better than the ones of the girls of islamic origin in France.... + the law only states that it's prohibited in school.....even if outside school the girls will be forced to wear their scarf, in school they won't which is a step forward.....because once you've tasted freedom....it's not about people being "affected by what otgher people wear", it's about fighting repression of part of the population of one's own country....
since you're talking about the mass protests against the ban of the scarf...there was this big one in france "led by french muslim women"....afterwards we learn that those women were gforced to walk in that march.....here the law IS about protecting elementary rights:"equality rights of french muslim women towards the rest of the population"....
you know in France there's a big problem of Muslim-origin girls being group-raped because they don't wear the scarf?no, not one or two cases.....

[randdebiel²]

which agravation are you talking of?
the public benefit is huge...especially for the girls themselves....nobody can foce them to wear it anymore because it's illegal, it's a giant step towards liberalisation of girls from muslim origin (mind you I deliberately don't use the word muslim girls, because one of the main problems is just that most girls that are forced to wear the scarf aren't even muslim, but only iof muslim origine, something the mullahs in france purposedly omit when they talk about "our girls")
there's a problem for the minority that wear them out of their own choice, but let's be serious, how can you make a religious choice when you're 12? you don't have the maturity yet.....
for the other symbols, I don't think it's the same, and they don't bother me....except, you can't prohibit one without the others, even though you should.....is it a huge cost? for the sikhs probably yes, and maybe there should be an exception for them...for the other ones, I don't think so.....

The aggravation that has prompted debate on here, and elsewhere. The aggravation that has encouraged Muslims throughout the world to march against this new law.

Clearly the actions of the French government have upset some people, hence the widespread debate those actions have prompted.

And the public benefit?

I'm still not sure. Do we abolish any public expression of religion?If so, will the French agree to demolish Notre Dame? It is designed on medieval cruciform lines (the floor plan is in the shape of a cross) and is therefore a religious symbol in a public place.

Alternatively, do we pick and choose the ones we want? Un pays, un peuple, une gouvernement, peut-etre?

The argument about "liberalising" women from Islam will run on for as long as we have organised religions. People of Islamic background will continue to face these issues regardless of what the law says. The population at large is unaffected by whether people are wearing headscarves or bikinis (beyond crude aesthetic considerations, at least ). Prohibitive laws should be there to protect the reasonable rights of the masses. (Note the distinction between prohibitive and permissive laws. Legislation which enshrines the reasonable rights of minority groups is rather different).

So my point is that the French law is sensible if extended to remove any public expression of organised religion (desirable IMHO), but futile if it is a one-off ruling against a specific faith which merely engenders a sense of grievance and prejudice.

Since my ideal aim isn't practical, I can't see much merit in the French legislation. Were my target to be attainable it would be a valid first step. And no, I don't think there's an inherent logical contradiction.

[randdebiel²]

I'm all for public displays of anything that doesn't scare children. The idea that the French state is secular is ridiculous. It's a semi-secularised Christian state. French workers get Sunday off, and Christmas, not Friday and Eid. The power of the majority masquerading under the guise of neutrality, as it so often is. Go on, swing your crucifixes, and shake your turbans, and create a cacophonous multiplicity of noise and colour. It's an order.

the key word is separation of church and law....of course you'll always get religious signs of all kinds.....but if you're in a PUBLIC SCHOOL you shouldn't make reliligious statements...