France is going to order religious people to do something they believe is wrong in the name of separation of church and state. I don't see how this isn't comparable to telling people they can't go to church. How in the world is ordering people to violate one of their religious tenets "separation of church and state"?
the law against head scarves and other religious symbols in schools, including Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses
These are not comparable. The Christian religion does not mandate the wearing of crosses, and if I understand correctly, the Jewish religion does not mandate the wearing of skullcaps. However, some versions of the Muslim religion do mandate the wearing of headcoverings for women.
President Jacques Chirac, who has previously made clear his opposition to head scarves in schools
I thought France elected this guy because the other guy was a bigot. Is the selection really that bad over there?
``If you make me choose between breaking the law and breaking the Quran, I'll break the law,'' he said, referring to the Muslim holy book. ``Today, they forbid us from wearing veils. Tomorrow, they'll forbid us from being Muslims.''
More power to him. As the Bible says, we ought to obey God rather than men. As long as my God doesn't command me to violate anyone else's rights, noone should have a problem with me doing whatever I think God said, whether they agree or not.
Not all Muslims oppose banning head scarves.
This will no doubt be used to justify forcing even those who disagree to violate their faith, and it completely ignores freedom of religion. The Muslims themselves did this to the Jewish Karaites in the middle ages, insisting that they follow the sect of Orthodox Judaism which mandated obedience to the Oral Tradition of the Rabbis (which eventually became the Talmud and is considered "Oral Torah" comparable to the "Written Torah" of the Bible) when the Karaites believed the Oral Tradition was a violation of their religion.
Is there some reason people can't stay out of each other's lives?
I note with interest that privatizing the school system would solve all this problem. I've been refreshed to repeatedly make this observation over and over again since I agreed with Sarah that we would homeschool our children.
I sometimes wonder if this law has not been pushed by antesemits. I'll wait until Wednesday, when the final decision will be made, before blogging about this.
(*) However I note that in the recommendations made to the government, it has been said that history of religions should now be taught more seriously to children, along "normal" history. This is genuinely a good thing. I'm sure there would be less antisemits if people were more familiar with the history of Jews from Flavius Joseph to Chaim Weizmann.
Re:Insanity
jdavidb on 2003-12-12T22:09:58
Thanks. You at least help restore my faith in the French people, if not their government.
:) I'd question the government's role in attacking religious beliefs, though. Again, as long as no rights are violated, people should be allowed to believe whatever they want (and as long as they are willing to fact the consequences of their beliefs). For example, a Muslim may be allowed to hate Christians so long as he does not engage in violence toward them. (And so long as he is willing to accept the fact that Christians are thus likely to ostracize him.)
I'm earnestly agreed with you that education is the main solution, whether public or private. People should understand opposing points of view so well they could expound upon them themselves before they start criticizing.
Re:Insanity
rafael on 2003-12-12T22:25:10
We can't obviously mind-control everyone, forcing them not to hate their fellows:) But the main purpose of a democracy is to provide a safe place for citizens, where they can enjoy their freedom without being paralyzed by the fear of seeing their synagogue burnt (taking an example from real life.) Thus I don't think at all that a government should attack any religious belief -- religion is not the government's business. But it should make efforts to prevent, as much as possible, the spreading of fundamentalism, a word that in France is associated with the guys who think that blowing one's head in a street in Jerusalem sends you directly in Heaven. (Always define words, to avoid misunderstandings.) And for this kind of effort, education works way better than repression. Re:Insanity
jordan on 2003-12-12T22:43:18
- But the main purpose of a democracy is to provide a safe place for citizens, where they can enjoy their freedom without being paralyzed by the fear of seeing their synagogue burnt (taking an example from real life.)
I disagree that "main purpose of a democracy" is to protect minorities. In fact, bigotry and hatred of minority groups can flourish in a democracy. As someone said "A Democracy is three wolves and
two sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
Am I against democracy? No. As Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst possible form of government except, of course, all others that men have attempted."
Democracy is a necessity because all other forms are unstable and tend to be even more unfair to minorities than democracy. At least, in a democracy with an enlightened populace, whatever that really means.
I agree with you about the primacy of education, by the way. An educated or enlightened populace is the only way Democracy can survive. The sad state of education has me concerned...
I also think that it's best when people live under a strict Constitution that is difficult to change. This helps to prevent heated emotions and mob rule from taking over. I wish that the government of the US took it's Constitution more seriously, though.
Re:Insanity
pudge on 2003-12-16T23:55:14
I disagree that "main purpose of a democracy" is to protect minorities.
Right. That is the job of a Republic.:-)
Re:Insanity
pudge on 2003-12-16T23:54:25
I don't mind, in principle, the idea of forbidding head coverings, or any other thing a public school wants. The problem is that you have a system that is set up for all the people of a nation (the public school system). That is a problem in a diverse, multiethnic, multireligious, society, as it will always create conflicts like this.
Who is to say which religious freedoms are necessary to allow for, and which are not? Why should the government be making any such decisions? But if they don't, then who will?
It's a pickle, no doubt about it.
One of the many reasons I am homeschooling.:-) Re:Insanity
rafael on 2003-12-17T06:33:52
If a nation lets its communities go down the path of seperation, balkanization and isolement, it's a sign it's about to explode. Coming from a family of immigrants, having lived among immigrants, I can testify that public school is the single most important entity to help a nation to form a coherent entity, and to absorb the new blood from immigration.Re:Insanity
jdavidb on 2003-12-18T16:43:55
If a nation lets its communities go down the path of seperation, balkanization and isolement, it's a sign it's about to explode.
The French perspective seems to be one of safeguarding the culture. Many Americans share this view as well.
I view liberty in this matter as paramount, however. Society is an aggregate of many individuals and their choices. Some may view one language as more desirable than another and may wish to force this choice on others. Allowing people to choose their language, however, may result in better decisions overall. If everyone entering America has to learn English, they might not have the time and resources to learn a language that might be better for them, like Esperanto. (I'm not making the case that Esperanto is a better language; I'm making the case that each individual needs to be at liberty to decide what is best for them.)
Allowing people to choose their culture results in a sort of competitition and innovation in a sort of marketplace of cultures. We've been watching the melting pot here for 200 years. People come over and stay isolated for a generation or two, and then slowly blend in. As they do so, they add their own unique contributions to the culture. If they were forced to assimilate according to someone else's predefined plans, they might drop valuable elements of their culture that would have otherwise been retained and passed on.
Coming from a family of immigrants, having lived among immigrants, I can testify that public school is the single most important entity to help a nation to form a coherent entity, and to absorb the new blood from immigration.
I think the need to support oneself economically and get by in public is the single best incentive for this. If the government allows people to choose their languages but transacts official business only in one, then people will learn that language. If people have trouble getting a job because they wear headcoverings, they will reevaluate how important they believe that headcovering to be.
Re:Insanity
jdavidb on 2003-12-18T16:35:23
Who is to say which religious freedoms are necessary to allow for, and which are not?
There's a simple answer to that. Your rights end at my nose. You can do anything you want so long as it doesn't directly affect me. So you can engage in any religious activity you want as long as you're not doing anything to me, or I consent to whatever you do to me. You can wear headcoverings, but you can't force me to. You can sacrifice your animals, but you cannot sacrifice mine, or a human being. (If someone feels their god demands that they violate someone else's rights, then their god sure better provide something to compensate for the legal penalty society will impose. If he doesn't, tough noogies. They can choose another religion, or keep serving the god who doesn't make it worth their while.) So, since my wearing a headcovering doesn't do anything to anybody else, nobody has the right to prevent me from doing so. Headcoverings are a very straightforward application of rights.
Rights never create an obligation in other people, other than the obligation to respect those rights. I don't have a right to force you to do anything, including a presumed right to education at public expense or a right to a society that looks like I want it to.
Now, many religious people think that since they are affected when other people don't keep their religion, they therefore have a right to impose their views on others. The difference, of course, is that these actions of others only affect you indirectly, not directly. It's the difference between somebody going into business in competition with yours and devaluing your inventory, and someone breaking into your warehouse and "devaluing" your inventory through sabotage.
Why should the government be making any such decisions?
They shouldn't. Their only job is to safeguard the rights and safety of their citizens.
But if they don't, then who will?
Each individual citizen should always decide for themselves what they want to do, without interference from government. The only time government should enter into it is when someone violates someone else's rights.
One of the many reasons I am homeschooling.
:-) Ever since I've made that decision it's been so wonderful to look at issues like that and say, "Hey, we won't ever have to deal with that!" This is a simple case where if the government hadn't exceeded its purpose, we wouldn't have these difficult decisions.
Re:Insanity
pudge on 2003-12-18T17:17:38
There's a simple answer to that. Your rights end at my nose.
It's not that simple. The obvious examples are classes teaching about sex and abortion and evolution. Should we refuse to teach about them so no one's rights are abrogated? If they are taught, does that constitution such an abrogation at all?
And what about my right, as a Christian and citizen with free speech, to say that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ is going to hell? Does that harm someone's nose, or does preventing me from saying it harm my nose?
The question of where your nose begins is the tough question. The longer your nose gets, the less free I am to swing my fist.
Further, it is laughable to talk about schools in terms of rights of the individual. Public schools exist for the primary purpose of homogenizing society, to strip away individuality, to make us into one great big fuctioning unit of citizenry. That's a fine goal, I suppose, but I want no part of it for my child.:-)
Re:Insanity
jdavidb on 2003-12-18T22:07:04
Should we refuse to teach about them so no one's rights are abrogated? If they are taught, does that constitution such an abrogation at all?
The question wouldn't arise if we didn't confiscate wealth to provide a free education.
:D But you knew that. And what about my right, as a Christian and citizen with free speech, to say that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ is going to hell? Does that harm someone's nose, or does preventing me from saying it harm my nose?
That one's simple. Saying that doesn't harm anyone, so it's okay to say it. Whining that what I said "hurt you" in an emotional sense is not at all a compelling reason for abridging my rights. Prohibiting Christians from exercising their free speech because it "hurts people" is exactly as fair as prohibiting atheists from exercising the same rights.
It's been pointed out to me recently that free speech is really more about property rights. You have the right to say whatever you want
... on your website, with your printing press, at your expense. (Of course, with the regulations we want to put on websites, that's not entirely true from a legal standpoint at the moment. But I'm speaking of the ideal.) The question of where your nose begins is the tough question. The longer your nose gets, the less free I am to swing my fist.
It can be hairy (ooh, what a horrible pun...), but I think it's simple in most cases. You don't have the right to do something TO ME or my property without my consent. However, you do have the right to do something that affects me only indirectly. Going into business and competing with me may devalue my property, but you still have the right. Painting your house a funny color may devalue my house, but as you didn't do anything TO my house, I'd contend that you have that right (although zoning laws and other legislation may restrict this right; incidentally, those who don't agree to this ideal should live in areas with homeowner's agreements, which are voluntary contracts, rather than coercing others to live the way they want them to). I'll leave the extension of this argument to "intellectual property" as an exercise to the reader, but if you extend it consistently and logically, you'll have my belief, which probably doesn't agree with anyone else's here.
Public schools exist for the primary purpose of homogenizing society, to strip away individuality, to make us into one great big fuctioning unit of citizenry. That's a fine goal, I suppose, but I want no part of it for my child.
Well, maybe we homeschool for different reasons. I've no problem with providing a free education to the public, and in fact was thinking about donating to my local public schools before I became engaged to a lady who convinced me to homeschool. Of course, I do have a problem with forcibly taking money away from people who might not agree with this goal. And I do have a problem with the government being the entity to provide the free schooling. But I don't expect those to change during my lifetime, and I respect the quality and value of the public education being provided in my area. (I'd be happy if they just repeal compulsory schooling laws, but I don't suppose that will happen, either.)
Again, it's so wonderful to see how these problems are solved when you can just say, "Hey! My kid will never have to deal with that!"
:D It's a little upsetting that folks want to solve all problems through government even for those who do not agree that government is the best or even an appropriate solution. Re:Insanity
pudge on 2003-12-19T00:11:59
That one's simple
No, it isn't. You might have your own idea about it, but many people -- including courts and legislators -- will disagree with you. There's no clear direction in our laws on the matter.
