|
|
Post by Rama on Jan 22, 2004 15:10:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Jan 22, 2004 16:15:03 GMT -5
Actually, I like it. If they told me I had to take the anti-christian buttons off my backpack because they are derisive AND told the Christians teh same about their crosses, I think I'd like it just fine. This law isn't about what you can and can not do, it's about ending trouble. No one whines when you can't wear a "I hate kikes" shirt to school, because it labels you as an enemy. Just as crosses, bandanas, etc. can do. I'm weary about the beard policy, but only because it seems hard to enforce fairly. Either no one has any facial hair at all, or everyone gets to, facial hair on a non-relgious basis seems, well, stupid. This is really just the logical extension of school uniforms. No one ever learns anything in church, so why can't they just not be spiritual in school?
|
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Jan 22, 2004 17:02:20 GMT -5
I probably would think this was a better idea if it wasn't French, but as it is, it stinks of a government extending beyond its' limits of responsibility. It really bothers me when rights are supressed, even if done in the name of security. It feels too totaltarian for my liking, seems ambiguous and difficult to enforce, and it exudes that cocky French air of arrogance(and cheese), even if it was devised with the lofty goals of secularism in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atsuko73 on Jan 22, 2004 19:00:34 GMT -5
someday, Ian, we'll all go to france. and you will love it. and we'll laugh and laugh....
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Jan 23, 2004 9:17:15 GMT -5
I probably would think this was a better idea if it wasn't French, but as it is, it stinks of a government extending beyond its' limits of responsibility. It really bothers me when rights are supressed, even if done in the name of security. It feels too totaltarian for my liking, seems ambiguous and difficult to enforce, and it exudes that cocky French air of arrogance(and cheese), even if it was devised with the lofty goals of secularism in mind. I'm pretty much on the same page here. I see this as getting in the way of personal expression freedoms for no reason. There is a certain sticky area in situations like the California driver's license not being approve for a muslim woman because she won't remove her head dress. In that situation, it becomes an issue of her not being identifiable if you can only see her eyes, and therefore a public safety issue. To grant her special exemptions would be State kowtowing to Religion. Uh-oh! And Jason - Do you really think it's the same thing for a Christian to be disallowed a cross and you to be disallowed an anti-christian button? One's passive, one's attacking the other, imo. Better would be to disallow both a "Jesus is a cunt" shirt and a "You're gonna burn in hell, murderous heathen" shirt together. I would like an atheist atom, a humanist H, or a Darwin fish to the same level of aggressiveness as a cross. ~Roger |
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Jan 23, 2004 12:12:15 GMT -5
That's all fine and good, but here's the thing, the school has problems with the different religions being all together. They know they aren't suppose to be very "religious" during school (save that for church), but they try anyway. I really don't see this as an attack on anyone's personal liberties, especially since it is across the board.
"Knives are dangerous," is to "don't bring knives to school." As "religious declarations are dangerous," is to _______?
Learning is for school, faith is for church or home. Is it really asking all that much for a kid to leave his yamaka (sp.), scarf, bandana, cross, etc. at home for a few hours so that he's not causing trouble?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Jan 23, 2004 13:51:52 GMT -5
That's all fine and good, but here's the thing, the school has problems with the different religions being all together. They know they aren't suppose to be very "religious" during school (save that for church), but they try anyway. I really don't see this as an attack on anyone's personal liberties, especially since it is across the board. "Knives are dangerous," is to "don't bring knives to school." As "religious declarations are dangerous," is to _______? Learning is for school, faith is for church or home. Is it really asking all that much for a kid to leave his yamaka (sp.), scarf, bandana, cross, etc. at home for a few hours so that he's not causing trouble? What you're saying is to essentially ban gang colors like they do in LA schools. The gangs still know who each other are, and find alternative ways to display it. If this is based on a fundamental lapse in relations between two groups, than the solution is to mediate, not eliminate arbitray, inoffensive outward display choices. ~Roger |
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Jan 23, 2004 15:52:55 GMT -5
I'd have to side with Roger and Ian on this one. The goal of church-state separation is to neither inhibit nor promote religion, not to create an anti-religious state. I would dislike an anti-religious state as much as a religious one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Jan 23, 2004 17:32:12 GMT -5
They're not tyring to make an anti religious state! They're trying to make a religiously neutral SCHOOL SYSTEM. If they said, "hey, you can't be muslim anymore, kid," that'd be a whole different story. I'm an atheist, I have a lot to say about Christianity, but I know it isn't my place to say those things in a history class about Christianity - so I save them for church...
There's a time and place for everything. Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's. And last I checked, schools still belonged to Ceasar, well, sort of.
|
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Jan 23, 2004 18:05:28 GMT -5
But these people see wearing crazy crap on their heads a part of being religious, part of being Muslim. Telling them to not wear something, or not shave a beard is telling them, even if only for 8 hours a day and five days a week, is telling them, at least to them, that they aren't doing their duties as religious zombies. No beard = no virgins in paradise. No head thingy= no chance to be one of those virgins in paradise. Basically it is the state forcing someone to sin as they see it.
I know it is stupid. You know it is stupid. But if we don't give the babys their bottles, they are gonna cry. Plus, we'd be Nazis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Jan 23, 2004 19:02:30 GMT -5
If Flavor Flav was elected president of the US, they wouldn't let him wear a huge gold clock on his neck during his inaugeration. That doesn't mean he isn't still a Funk-Masta, it just means he respects that certain things belong in certain domains. Think on this ancient peice of wisdom:
"I won't swim in your toilet, so don't pee in my pool."
Easy, right? Not to the zealots. I don't feel the need to wear a black shirt everyday, everywhere I go that says in big white blcok letters, "I'm a pro-choice, atheistic, commie anarchist liberal, and I don't hate gays or blakcs either."
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the koran doesn't require headwear anymore than the bible require big gold crosses around everyones' necks. As a matter of fact, I remember a lot of younger muslim women don't even like having to wear hajibs, it was a big deal in women's rights a few years back among the western world's feminists. The only reason people wear crosses or stars of David or dumb crap on their head IS to advertise to others what their religion is and to make a big deal out of it. I don't think I've ever met a fundie who thought he had to wear a cross or god might mistake him for a jew.
Again, though, I'm still not comfortable with the beard idea. And I think that one actually is in the koran.
|
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Jan 23, 2004 19:23:58 GMT -5
We all know religious people don't need something in their respective HOOOOLLLLY BOOOOOOHHHKKK to believe it is still part of their creed. Hell, the stuff in those books is bs, what difference does unwritten bs make to them?
I'm not saying these people aren't stupid, I'm just saying stupid people have rights too. Problem is, stupid people can't usually tell if their rights have been violated or not so the'll just start bitching and bombing things.
Ian "stupid babies need the most attention" Thompson
|
|
