France and "religious symbols"

[fist_mlrs]

i think i'll never get whats so cool about nationalism.

predjudices=bad.

all problems have reasons which can usually be found in the social situation of the people who "create" the problem.

i know alot of stupid assheads who think it is ok to generalize other people an make them responsible for any difficulties he met. this goes from hatred towards eastern europens, arabs, jews, americans and just about any other group of people you could think of. if you ask me such points of view are nothing but a disgusting prove of human stupidness. yet i don't just go off and say "any racist ist stupid". they are scum imo, but their view has a source, and this source are social problems. you see other people get much more from life and there is somebody to blame for (be it for a true or untrue reason) you start to generalize and claim these people responsible for your problems. why was there antisemitism in the first place? because the yews had money while most other people in europe were starving. nobody cared why they had more money, they were just evil rich bastards. antiamericanism in the arab countrys comes from the same source. they see americans playing the big boss bombing their countrys once its time for votes and destroying the morale within the country. africa has been surpresed by european imperialism for centurys, so quite a few africans share a hate agains whites.

hate resulting from generalizations is among the worst things to be, but more generalizations won't do anything at all. unless you can tollerate a intollerant tendence within a group of people and do something constructive against it you don't fix the problem. hate doesn't disapear because you look away, the only way to "fix" this problem is to get the hate out of the minds, read to show them the reason why they hate is faulty. you won't do this with more intollerance and generalizations.

 

[Vega-don]

i dont think that the future of france is bad.the demographics wont show an invasion since immigrants childrens have the same demographics behaviour as frenchs of french origins, and immigration is almost at zero now.

the muslim population is not realy a problem , many of them are racists but they aint killing each others in the streets and i hope islamism will decline in the future just like in all the muslim world.
i think the islamism wave is just coming a few years after the muslim countries here.

the only BIG problem we have is the tensions between the 500.000 jews and the 5.000.000 muslims (read person of muslim/jew origin)

 

[TheNut]

Since I started this thread I geuss I might as well express my opinions on it. First and foremost SaraP, how do you expect people to be reasonable when you are saying that the government has a right to repress a religion just because the actions of a very small minority of its members? I suggest you watch the movie "The Siege" starring Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis. It was made in the early 1990s and is terrifying to go back and watch at this point in time. Watch the movie and learn for once in your life.

Now for the actual issue. I will not claim to fully understand the political situation. How can I possibly? I don't live in France nor have I ever been there, so I do not understand the underlying social ideals and issues that have caused this situation to arise. However, as you can probably geuss from my above comments, it just does not seem right to me that a government can tell its people that they are not allowed to freely express their religion. Fundamental Islam REQUIRES women to wear the headscaf and Fundemental Judism REQUIRES men to wear a skullcap. In order to freely practice one of these religions, the article of clothing must be worn. I also find it interesting, and some what hypocritical, that Christian crosses were only prohibited from being "large." Crosses should be banned altogether if you want to be consistant and equally fair. As for parents forcing children to wear these articles of clothing, fine. My parents forced me to do things I didn't want to do. They forced me to go to church, they forced me to eat vegitables, they forced me to do my homework, they forced me to go to school. Forcing children to do something that the parent sees as good for them is part of parenting. That is, of course, unless said thing is directly harmful to the child's well being. Frankly I dread the day that children can do anything they want and there is nothing the parent can do about it.

Now, from what I've read France is in the middle an integration crisis and this law is in response to that crisis. This changes things a bit. From what I understand the situation is dire and as extreme as this law is it may be necessary. That changes things a bit. If there is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY to resolve the current crisis, then this law should be used, but not one millisecond before that moment. The problem I see with the law now is there is no remedy for those Muslims that wish to remain wearing the headscarf. The Jewish community has many private institutions in France which are exempt from the ban. However, the Muslim community has only a single private institution of all of France. That's right, if a muslim women wishes to continue wearing the headscarf, they must ALL be packed into one school in the city of Lille. If there were more private institutions, this law just might work, but at the moment, I just can not see the freedom, equality nor the liberty in such a law for a country that prides it self on those three ideals.

EDIT
Out of curiousity, what is the exact wording of the French Constitution regarding church and state? In the US, this kind of law would be clearly unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").

 

[TheNut]

And for you "morons" out there...the dialectizer strikes again!

Siss I startid dis dread I geuss I mite as webuhll express my opinions on it. Gawlly!Firss 'n f'emost SaraP, duh, how do you expeck peoble t' be reasonaggle when you are sayigg dat de gobehnmin has a rite t' repress a religion dgust cuz de ackions of a behy small minority of its membehs, duh...uh...? I suggest you watch de moobie "De Siege" starrigg Denzel Washiggton 'n Bruce Willis. It was made in the, uh, ear 1990s 'n is tehrifyigg t' go back 'n watch at dis poit in time. Watch de moobie 'n learn f' oss in your life.

Now f' de ackual issue. I will not claim t' ful undehstand de political situashun. Duh, how can I possibly, duh...uh...? I don't libe in Frass nor habe I ebeh been dehe, uh uh uh, so I do not undehstand de undehlyigg social ideals 'n issues dat habe cuzd dis situashun t' arise. Duh, howebeh, as you can probab geuss from my abobe commins, duuhhhh, it dgust does not seem rite t' me dat a gobehnmin can tell its peoble dat dey are not allowebuhd t' free express deir religion. Fundaminal Islam REQUIRES women t' webuhar de gordscaf 'n Fundeminal Dgudism REQUIRES men t' webuhar a skullcap. In ordeh t' free prackice one of dese religions, duuhhhh, de article of clodigg must be worn. I also find it innerestigg, 'n some what hypokitical, dat Christian crosses webuhre on prohibitid from beigg "large." Crosses shudd be bannid altogedeh if you want t' be consistant 'n ekal fair. As f' parents f'cigg children t' webuhar dese articles of clodigg, fine. My parents f'cid me t' do diggs I didn't want t' do. Dey f'cid me t' go t' church, dey f'cid me t' eat begitaggles, duuhhhh, dey f'cid me t' do my homework, dey f'cid me t' go t' school. F'cigg children t' do somedigg dat de parent sees as good f' dem is part of parentigg. Dat is, duuhhhh, of cusse, uh uh uh, unless said digg is direck harmful t' the, errr, child's webuhll beigg. Frank I dread the, uhhh, day dat children can do anydigg dey want 'n dehe is nodigg de parent can do bou' it. Lee me lone!

Now, uh uh uh uh uh uh, from what I'be read Frass is in de mibble an integrashun crisis 'n dis law is in reponse t' dat crisis. Uhhh....Dis changes diggs a bit. From what I undehstand the, ERRRR, situashun is dire 'n as extreme as dis law is it may be necess. Dat changes diggs a bit. Gawlly!If dehe is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY t' resolbe the, errr, current crisis, duuhhhh, den dis law shudd be used, uh uh uh uh, but not one milliseconb bef'e dat momin. De progglem I see wid de law now is dehe is no remedy f' dose Muslims dat wish t' remain webuharigg de gordscarf, GEEEHEEHEEE.De Dgewish commuty has many pribate institititions in Frass which are exempp from de ban, GEEEHEEHEEE.Duh, howebeh, de Muslim commuty has on a siggle pribate instititition of all of Frass. Dat's rite, if a muslim women wishes t' continue webuharigg de gordscarf, uh uh uh uh uh, dey must ALL be packid into one school in the, errr, city of Lille. If dehe webuhre more pribate institititions, duuhhhh, dis law dgust mite work, but at de momin, I dgust can not see the, uh uh uh, freedom, ekality nor de libehty in such a law f' a country dat prides it self on dose dree ideals.

EDIT
Out of curiousity, what is the, uh, exack wordigg of de French Constititition regardigg church 'n state, duh...uh...? In de US, dis kind of law wudd be clear unconstitititional undeh de 1st Amendmin ("Congress shall make no law repeckigg an establishmin of religion, or prohibitigg the, uh uh uh, free exehcise deheof").

 

[MadWoffen]

Salidin said Islam doesn't force women to wear scarves, you're talking about politics and extreamists.

The burka and headscarves actually aren't techniquely part of Islam, its a beddewan(sp?) tradition that has carried over into Islam, don't know enough about it to say exactly how it made the jump into islam but I know mohamed lived with the beddewans (i know the spelling is way oof maybe salidan can help me) so i suspect thats part of it

And I was underlining the problem in FRANCE but also in some other countries where women aren't that happy to wear a scarf/veil/burka.

The question is not to ban religions in public schools, it is to ban the proselitism of these religions.
One may wonder why we don't hear muslim women provoking trouble in Turkey or Tunisia where the scarf is banned from public school or universities while France is known to be a laïc republic.

As for the law in itself, it won't resolve anything by itself. A lot more has to be made but not only in the repression sector. Education must play a major factor here.

 

[Saladin]

As for your coment about no woman being forced to wear the veil, it is just an idiot comment from someone too blind to seek a bit the truth behind the story. I can't count the number of interviews muslim women in different arabic countries (I'm counting France in it ) gave to journalists, generally with their face hidden and telling how much they would like to get rid off the scarf and show their feminity in public...but they can't because of what would think the family or because the pression of their father or brothers.

I didnt say that.
I'll say more to get my point out.

I know there are a great many women that are forced to wear the scarf (and the people that force them are sinning, that was the whole dont enforce religion comment), but im saying the religion itself isnt what forces the wearing of the scarf, and the origins of wearing the scarf are debatable, but its part of the muh'rim (idk if theres a different word in english) - this is the area of the body that should be covereverd when in public, this exists for men too (one part for men is wearing clothes above the knees - aka no short shorts). If a woman CHOSES to wear it, and isnt forced, why shouldnt she be able to wear this if she believes it to be an essential part of her religion.

There are people that dont wear the veil and still practice Islam, whether thats right or not, I dont know, but it still exists in countries like syria and lebanon. In other countries like SA (which btw i hate dearly for calling itself a religious government when it isnt at all) it is forced on women, and depending on the city you might get forced to covering your entire face- thats wrong, dont blame the relgion, dont ban the wearing of it, punish the people forcing others to do it if thats your goal.

about this being in the system for some time, i think i remember hearing about it first in september like hearing about the law going to be passed then, and then hearing it passed some time in later december....but im not entirely sure.

btw, its bedouin
edit: lol i made a mini version of word w/ its own spellcheck and everything and even a webbrowser called bedouin in vb, i wonder where it ended up....

 

[Saladin]

well, about the turkey and tunisia comment, oh, they do. turkey banned fezzes, that wasnt welcomed, and they banned hijab in universities too and that wasnt welcomed either, but a lot of the universites are actually split sex wise so it would be alright to not wear a veil in those circumstances because it is allowed for them not to wear veils in the presence of only other women. Now in the non sexually segregated institutions, there are still problems with the hijab, it just doesnt hit CNN.


turkey is one messed up country.

 

[Vers Vlees]

The funny thing is that not only is this quote devoid of context you've actually completely misinterpreted the quote, you should probably learn all the words of a quote before you post racist drivel. Yes it says fight the unbelievers, but it says specificly to show them mercy and once they stop fighting to leave alone, additionaly it says to leaves Christians and Jews completely alone (people of the book refers to all who recognize abraham as a prophet of god). Jizya refers to a modest tribute if I remember correctly. When a country fell to a muslim army all citizens were given the oppurunity peacefully convert, otherwise they would have to pay a modest tribute and then be allowed to practice their faith (jews and christians were exempt).

Also the Muslims treated the Jewish ppl a lot better then the christians did.
Infact the Crusades started with Pogroms in the homelands.

After the muslim empire unified the middle east it was followed by the longest period of peace in human history, while the christians were threatening to burn scientists at the stake muslims were unlocking the ancient knowledge of the greeks along with making vast strides in mathmatics astronomy and philosophy (yes muslims allowed debate about the nature of the universe and their religon, I am suddenly missing the name of the muslim writer but his famous line from his book is "how long shall I lay brick upon the face of the sea", this was spoken about following the tenents of islam).

That is also tru. After the demise of the west Roman empire Europa was nothing more then well a non civilliaced(sp?) ****hole.That was being invaded by Visigoths, barbarians en vikings. The only ppl who could write and read there were the Monks/priest. Works from great greek and roman philosphers were forbidden because they were peagan YES PEAGAN the greatest minds of the ancient world were seen as heathens PEAGANS GG knowlodge. Only in the year 1000 Europe was beginning the crawl out of the dark ages. Also a lot off technology came from the east trough muslims with trade. (If there was no fighting during the crusades there was trade) How else do you think the europeans would have got the knowledge to build those big ass Catheredals
Or why do think the spanish were abel to sail across the sea. Lets just say who dragged spain from the darkages to one of the most modern country at the time. Jup the Moors they occopied spain from 700 AD. They brought knowlodge off Irrigation,shipbuilding, navigation, construction works etc.

Sound opressive? When the pope declared the first crusade the christian crusaders murdered every civillian they found and burned whatever they couldn't take for themselves, resulting in one of the worst massacres in human history during the fall of Jerusalem (might have the wrong city but i think it was Jerusalem)

Jup every Jew and muslims and probally a few orthoxdox christians who were in the wrong place and time which was Jeruzalem. The survivors were sold into slavery. Schisma anyone
In a twist of irony when Saladin recaptured Jeruzalem he was congratulated by the Emporer from the Byzantine empire. The byzantines werent too happy with those crusaders after all. They were rude, Constantinopel had been sacked by crusaders one time. Also in terms of civiliazation(sp?) the Byzantines realised the stood closer to the Muslims then Western christians.

The first crusade killed mainly christians. By their acting, Turkey, which was a christian majority country at that time became...muslim. It was one of the worst christian slaughtery of all times and it didn't started in Turkey (where they were just killing brownies without knowing their religion) but also in the Balkans where some kingdoms/baronnies refused to provide supply to the crusaders (just because they were too numerous to satisfy) and as result, crusaders pillaged the region and burned/killed/raped other christians...

One may wonder what would have happened if the crusades never happened...I think there is a comfortable probability that Turkey would be a christian bastion by now.

Wrong you idiot. The first crusades killed mainly muslims and jews. The christians who did get them selfs killed were either crusaders or Orthoxdox christians who got in the way of the crusaders. It even had a political motive instead of a religious one. The byzantines were in deep **** Their empire which was formed out of the Roman east empire was shrinking due to invasions off several muslim tribes.(Since 650 ad) So the byzantines asked their fellow catholic christians (the pope) for militairy help. And what better way to get a army for this is to called upon a religious crusade. If you fight in name of god your cool you will get in heaven. Ppl fight for that. If the pope would have said to go fight the muslims because the byzantines need our help ppl would have said why would I fight for a bunch of orthoxdox christians.
Crusade number 3 or 4 depends how you count them didnt even go to fight Muslims but was a pillage ride into constantinopel. Go to some certain cities in Italy and you will find statues and other treasures who may look roman but are stolen from Constantinopel.
Dont forget those christians you speak off at that time in turkey werent same sort of christians from western Europe. Byzantines were mainly Orthodox and Western Europeans were Catholics. (schisma anyone?) They may both been christians but they did not trust each other completly.
oh and btw Turkey became muslim state long after the crusades when the Turks invade constantinopel in 1583 or 1483 if im correct. And since attaturk turkey has been more secular and enforcing it more then many other christians countries.
So all you ppl may bitch about the muslim extremist but Christians arent any better. Infact every religion knows it extremist. And saying that islam is soooo terrorism friendly then why dont look the Ireland conflict

And this one is for you saladin. Isnt Baiber the real arab hero of the crusades? I mean saladin was a sucker for crying woman and childeren but baiber was the bad ass muther****er isnt he the guy who stopped christians by destroying every city or building at the sea so the crusaders couldnt land any where.

 

[Saladin]

How dare you.

He went from soldier to general to king of 2 nations. And he didnt have to kill anyone to get those positions (that is on his own side...)

He conquered jerusalem w/o killing anyone.

He put a city under siege, found out a wedding was going on there, and told his men to spare the room of the newly weds.

Saladin was a warrior king, he lived through 3 assisination attempts where the assasin managed to get close enough to touch him, hell he slept in chain mail because of it, and he got stabbed twice in his sleep, woke up to find an assain right on top of him, woke up chased the guy out, who ran straight into his gaurds and had him killed.

Saladin is the man who killed Guy of Lusignan - Saladin had made this previous arrangement to only attack soldiers - leaving trade and citizens alone. Well damned if he did, Guy went ahead and said **** it and started attacking caravans every which way. Well, Guy lied. He and his King were captured at the battle of Hattin. They were dragged into a room. Water was offerd to the king, who drank quite a bit and he gave the water to guy, who was not offered any. Saladin mentioned he didnt offer him any water - he took him outside - and walked back inside holding guy's head. Guy lied. Guy was a douche. Guy got killed for it. Saladin remined the king not to be like Guy, and the King was later freed.

In battles, particularly in taking back the conquered land, he had his soldiers stay at the wells, and had a few lead the enemy hordes tireles through desert w/o any sign of water, eventually they were lead to the wells, and Saladin's men just sat their playing w/ the water, drinking in it, pouring it on the sand, just torturing the crusaders with the sight of it, some couldnt take it and charged, and were taken down instantly, some surreneder so they could have a drop. Saladin one a few battles like this.

And did the Crusaders ever recover after saladin got the land back? No. Saladin was an awesome General King.

 

[MadWoffen]

Wrong you idiot. The first crusades killed mainly muslims and jews. The christians who did get them selfs killed were either crusaders or Orthoxdox christians who got in the way of the crusaders.


....



Dont forget those christians you speak off at that time in turkey werent same sort of christians from western Europe. Byzantines were mainly Orthodox and Western Europeans were Catholics. (schisma anyone?) They may both been christians but they did not trust each other completly.

Idiot yourself, you're calling names about it and said the same thing a bit later. I wasn't talking about catholics in particular but CHRISTIANS in general, you donkey. Those constitued a majority in Turkey despite the muslim invasion and yet christians and muslims were living in peace in the respect of each others before the crusade.
When the Emperor of Byzantine asked for help to the pope (Urban I or II), they were just requesting 2 or 3 companies of cavalry. The pope played in many level here as do every fine tacticians:

- clear western Europe from warmongers and unify them against a same enemy.
- diminish the influence of the Byzantine empire and the recent christian new branch provoked by the schism.
- take Jerusalem as prestige price and revive the christianism.
- secure the trade road to the East.

Ho yes, and go fuck yourself! I hate people calling names without a legit reasons.

 

[ecale3]

Sara you seem to be actively trying to piss in everone's cornflakes right about now. Islam is most definately NOT a religion that teaches hate, it does however have its share of extremists. Just about every religion does (which doesn't say much about religion). Look at how many wars christians have started (the crusades for example). If you want to say something bad about religion, make sure you take into account ANY religion falls into the arena as a breeding ground for terrorists. Remember the terrorism problems in ireland a while back? Not all of that was directed at the British, there was also the Catholics and the *protestants i believe* killing each other.

 

[SaraP]

I submit into evidence the entire book of revelations, in which all non believers end up dying at the closure of Armageddon. Stick that in your ****ing peace pipe and smoke it you stupid bitch.

Except that it's God doing the killing, not Christians -- there's a difference between "God/Allah/The Army of Holy Space Potatoes will smite the infidels with Holy Hand Grenades when the day of wrath comes!" and "GO KILL THE INFIDELS IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HIGH AND HOLY!!"

 

[Crazy_Ivan]

About the situation in france: it's an election stunt to get the voters in the south back to Chirac's party, instead of losing them to Front National and the other right-wing extremists.
Same counts for the VVD view. that's the 'Post-Pim' attitude. Thye lost voters, and now they will say anything to get them back.

The reason that the french law says 'all religious symbols' is to keep the anti-racism groups at bay.

About the so-called extremism: The muslim population in europe and the USA is NOT representative for the countries of origin.
Most people who came as refugees are from the upper and middle classes. Most of them had to pay LOTS of money to get out of their country. They have had a good education, and most likelyu have liberal views of their religon.

The guys who came to work, and later let their families come are from the lower classes, or from poor regions (central and eastern turkey for example). Even though they financially support their families in their home country, they have problems there.
For example: Most of the cleaning services and city garbage collection in holland is done by turks. They make a nice (for turkish standards) salary of it. When they come to their famili in Turkey, they have a problem: the job they do in holland. Garbage collecting and cleaning are considered the worst jobs you can get there.
So they have to make that image up with something else... showing that they are good muslims.

The image of the muslim world is mostly based on the USA view...
That view is NOT based on the degree of secularisation, but on 'how much oil do they give us' and on the attitude of the government towards the USA.
Even though Saudi Arabia is run by Wahabbites(sp), which are more extreme than the Shiite cleric in Iran, they are considered friends, because they allow US army bases on their territory, and supply oil. The population (and a lot of the security service) are anti-USA, but as the King and his family know that they are nothing but a big sandbox filled with oil and religious fanatics if they don't walk the USA line, they show the outside world their USA-friendly side, while they oppress their population.

 

[MadWoffen]

About the situation in france: it's an election stunt to get the voters in the south back to Chirac's party, instead of losing them to Front National and the other right-wing extremists.

The opposition parties voted massively for that law, in fact the left groups were very "enthusiast" about this law and his passing.

 

[Crazy_Ivan]

The only thing they care about is their seat in pairlament after elections.
Everything BUT FN in pairlament, same as Belgium does with Vlaams Blok

 

[MadWoffen]

The only thing they care about is their seat in pairlament after elections.
Everything BUT FN in pairlament, same as Belgium does with Vlaams Blok

Then you'll have to explain me why the Belgian parliament voted today in favor of non-europeans to give them the right to vote in local elections...

Things aren't that simple in politics. If it doesn't play in as many levels as possible, it isn't worthy.

 

[TheNut]

Except that it's God doing the killing, not Christians --

It's the same way in the Koran as well. The simple fact is that the Crusades were far worse than anything the Muslims did to Christains. However, it is an interesting historical note that it was not the Crusades that crippled the Middle East. We have the Mongolians to thank to for that. The furthest the Christains ever pushed through Muslim land was the holy land. The Mongolians swept through what is now Pakistan all the way up to Istanbul/Constantinople. In the end, the Muslims got screwed over.

 

[SaraP]

I think it's the Mongols, not the Mongolians. And they kicked everyone's butts, not just the Muslims -- among other things, they're the only people to ever win a winter war in Russia.

 

[Crazy_Ivan]

Then you'll have to explain me why the Belgian parliament voted today in favor of non-europeans to give them the right to vote in local elections...

Things aren't that simple in politics. If it doesn't play in as many levels as possible, it isn't worthy.

That's only the outcome. You missed the mess that was there in the weeks before the voting.
There was one party which was partially opposed (not vlaams blok, but one of the big ones). the leaders of the opposing fraction where thrown out so they could vote to pass the bill.

i think the main reason to pass that bill is to stop the far-right gaining more influence. statistics prove (since when did statisctis prove anything...) that muslims tend to choose christian-based politicians (at least in holland)

 

[MadWoffen]

Yes and no. In fact the leader of the right wing party (VLD) was fiercely opposed to it to the point our prime minister (also VLD) had to take the things himself in hand to avoid the fall of the gvt. He removed the leader of his own party to take, for a transition time, his post. French political parties (all orientations) voted for the law, Vlaamse Blok was against and AFAIK, VLD lawmakers were given the choice to vote according to their will.
For those who don't know: Belgian is generally ruled by coalitions gvt. For the moment it is a right wing/socialist coalition with a french-speaking branch and a dutch speaking branch in each of these parties. Technically, right wing is leading the country (with our prime minister, minister of finance, etc), the socialist party having vice-ministeries and some important ministerial posts. Normal votes are made at 50%, important laws and constitution modifications are taken with a majority of 2/3 in each speaking group. And that is just a part of our complicated system which is a federal one with a King on the top.

As for the law in itself, I'm not sure it will be usefull. I think only a small margin of foreigners are really interested in our politics and willing to vote in local elections. What I need to check is if they are compelled to vote (as we are). If not, then this law is wrong because we won't have the same rights. A national Belgian who refuse to vote may be fined and even thrown in prison according to the law, I don't see why the foreigners would be able to choose...not to mention this would create an inequity between citizens and a valid argument to scrap the law in a constitutional court.

And as a foreigner said in a TV interview: "if I want to vote in Belgian elections, I'll ask for the Belgian nationality, so don't bother me with it."