Heartland

Steve303 wrote: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!!

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

Padds.

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

randdebiel² wrote: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.....

hallucienate wrote:

Padstar wrote: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.

MrChris wrote: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 wrote: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.

MrChris wrote:...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.

MrChris wrote: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.

MrChris wrote: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?

paint it black wrote: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

andymackem wrote:
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.

andymackem wrote:

randdebiel² wrote: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.

MrChris wrote: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.