25 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRC: the French government have every right to ban it.
I don't know any parent that has 'no problem' when their children need medical care then again as someone that supports the killing of 150,000 unborn children everyday the vast majority due to 'social convenience' no one can expect you to understand feelings of a human nature. A rather I'll conceived and transparent ad hominem Zippy, predictable and ...[text shortened]... a symbol of oppression and the French government have every right to ban it. Vive Le Francias!
Only individuals have rights; governments only have powers. Sometimes they use their powers in a legitimate fashion and sometimes they violate the rights of individuals and thus become tyrannies.
No government has a legitimate power to discriminate against one group. No government has a legitimate power to punish religion expression.
25 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhile for some Muslims the concept of hijab is seen as balanced and consistent with ideas of gender equality, others see the religious prescription on female covering as chauvinistic, patriarchal, oppressive and an enforcement on women and against their rights. Most Muslims living in Western societies concede outright that the forcing of women to wear the headscarf is against Islamic precepts and cannot be accepted, but social pressure can in some cases be strong.
RC: the French government have every right to ban it.
Only individuals have rights; governments only have powers. Sometimes they use their powers in a legitimate fashion and sometimes they violate the rights of individuals and thus become tyrannies.
No government has a legitimate power to discriminate against one group. No government has a legitimate power to punish religion expression.
A number of Islamic feminists see the wearing of the headscarf, and particularly of the full-face veil such as the niqāb, as oppressive of women. The influential French activist and politician Fadela Amara has thus stated: "The veil is the visible symbol of the subjugation of women, and therefore has no place in the mixed, secular spaces of France's public school system."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
One might add that it also has no place in the mixed secular spaces of Frances beaches!
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI doubt that in most cases you feel it is a legitimate power of government to decide what is an appropriate religious expression and what is not.
While for some Muslims the concept of hijab is seen as balanced and consistent with ideas of gender equality, others see the religious prescription on female covering as chauvinistic, patriarchal, oppressive and an enforcement on women and against their rights. Most Muslims living in Western societies concede outright that the forcing of women to wea ...[text shortened]... hools
One might add that it also has no place in the mixed secular spaces of Frances beaches!
25 Aug 16
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is why the French have adopted a clear distinction between church and state.
I doubt that in most cases you feel it is a legitimate power of government to decide what is an appropriate religious expression and what is not.
Laïcité relies on the division between private life, where adherents believe religion belongs, and the public sphere, in which each individual, adherents believe, should appear as a simple citizen equal to all other citizens, devoid of ethnic, religious or other particularities. According to this concept, the government must refrain from taking positions on religious doctrine and only consider religious subjects for their practical consequences on inhabitants' lives.
Supporters argue that Laïcité by itself does not necessarily imply any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is best described as a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences). This is meant to protect both the government from any possible interference from religious organizations, and to protect the religious organization from political quarrels and controversies.
Laïcité is a core concept in the French constitution, Article 1 of which formally states that France is a secular republic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe US has a clear distinction between Church and State but it also assures the free exercise of religion. The French don't and that is why they are in violation of the Natural Rights of the People and in this area a tyranny.
That is why the French have adopted a clear distinction between church and state.
Laïcité relies on the division between private life, where adherents believe religion belongs, and the public sphere, in which each individual, adherents believe, [b]should appear as a simple citizen equal to all other citizens, devoid of ethnic, religious or other p ...[text shortened]... organization from political quarrels and controversies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité
25 Aug 16
From the French Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789:
10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
The French are presently ignoring the very principles that they have declared inviolable. A woman wearing a burkina is hardly "disturbing the public order" and should be left alone by the State.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauderAre we to seriously accept that for our Americans friends there is a clear distinction between church and state in praxis? Really? Please I don't think even you believe that.
The US has a clear distinction between Church and State but it also assures the free exercise of religion. The French don't and that is why they are in violation of the Natural Rights of the People and in this area a tyranny.
Perhaps they are in violation, but it can be equally construed that those who want to wear religious garb in the secular spaces of French beaches are in violation of the French secular laws.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauder1789 is a long way off from 1905. 😀
From the French Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789:
10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
The French are presently ignoring the very principles that they ...[text shortened]... wearing a burkina is hardly "disturbing the public order" and should be left alone by the State.
25 Aug 16
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAside from how any of us might interpret the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, in France who determines what constitutes "disturbing the public order"?
From the French Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789:
10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
The French are presently ignoring the very principles that they ...[text shortened]... wearing a burkina is hardly "disturbing the public order" and should be left alone by the State.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauderIn France is there a reasonable expectation of civil behavior, or is this a concept you will only see expressed (or implied) in a TOS agreement?
From the French Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789:
10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
The French are presently ignoring the very principles that they ...[text shortened]... wearing a burkina is hardly "disturbing the public order" and should be left alone by the State.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrench secular laws in this area violate the rights the Declaration said were " imprescriptible". Saying every place is "secular" but your house and place of worship is hardly respecting the right to manifest their religious views enshrined in the Declaration.
Are we to seriously accept that for our Americans friends there is a clear distinction between church and state in praxis? Really? Please I don't think even you believe that.
Perhaps they are in violation, but it can be equally construed that those who want to wear religious garb in the secular spaces of French beaches are in violation of the French secular laws.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by lemon limeIF the phrase is interpreted to mean anything that some other person might find offensive, then the right to manifestly declare your views (including religious ones) and freely communicate your ideas is meaningless. Surely that was not the intention of the Declaration.
Aside from how any of us might interpret the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, in France who determines what constitutes "disturbing the public order"?
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauderThe intention of any well written Declaration is to be meaningful in a broad context, and to not be so specific that it essentially becomes meaningless in case of unforseeable events.
IF the phrase is interpreted to mean anything that some other person might find offensive, then the right to manifestly declare your views (including religious ones) and freely communicate your ideas is meaningless. Surely that was not the intention of the Declaration.
You are focusing in on a handful of words without considering the circumstances at hand. This may work very well for you when acting as a defense attorney, but consistently arguing from a very narrow focus and working to disconnect dots (prosecuting attorneys typically work at connecting the dots) has its limitations.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauderA government can't really decide on this issue what is appropriate or not.
I doubt that in most cases you feel it is a legitimate power of government to decide what is an appropriate religious expression and what is not.
France, for example, has banned all forms of religious attire in schools (head scarfs, rosary beads, David stars, etc.).
Well, that last one I'm speculating... Don't know if it's specifically mentioned or not.