France decided to ban all religious symbols in state schools, including large Christian crucifxes, Sikh turbans and Jewish skullcaps.Doganay says: "I respect the law but the law doesn't respect me." She's good at expression, both in saying that and in the dramatic action of adopted the shaved-head look.
As the law was introduced in September, schools were told not to automatically exclude pupils who arrived wearing headscarves, but to try and avert a showdown through dialogue.
ADDED: After blogging that I saw that the story is dated October 1, 2004. That surprised me, because I clicked there from the current BBC.com "most popular" stories, specifically on the "most shared" list. There must be something in the news now that is making people look back to that story. Probably the debate over a ban on wearing burqas in public, going on now:
President Nicolas Sarkozy describes the full Islamic veil as "a sign of enslavement and debasement". Immigration minister Eric Besson calls it a "walking coffin". Even the usually restrained prime minister François Fillon accuses wearers of "hijacking Islam" and displaying a "dark sectarian image".
This kind of melodramatic language will dominate the debate currently being carried out in the national assembly in Paris as deputies consider a banning bill.... What's the point of it all? There are only around 2,000 women in France who actually wear a burqa (the cloak that covers a woman from head to foot) or a niqab (the more genuinely Islamic veil that conceals a woman's face). If the bill is passed next week, and then approved by the senate in September, then all can expect a nominal fine of €150 if they're caught wearing the garments. "Re-education" about republican values and civic responsibility is a more likely sanction....
Sarkozy and his allies say a ban will reinforce France's secular values, or laicité, with an extension of the legislation that saw all religious symbols, including the Islamic headscarf, banned in state schools in 2004. In reality, it will help the increasingly unpopular head of state to win votes....
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
She makes a powerful point. The freedom of religion that Americans all enjoyed for 150 years up until the athiest snobs on the Supreme Court revoked it, is a Unalienable Right that two bit Bullies dressed up as Government Employees need to take their grimey little hands off of.
Good for Sarkozy and the French.
Secularism and pluralism are absolutely essential values for liberal democratic societies.
Fundamentalist groups should have to give way on these issues if they want to participate in the benefits of modern societies.
What other religion stones women to death for sleeping with someone other than their husband?
What other religion has a city that it is forbidden for non-believers to visit?
What other religion condemns converts to another religion with death?
What other religion riots and murders those who do not observe its own religions proscriptions, like pictures of its all-too-human founder?
I say make them give way if they want to live in a modern seculuar society.
And as for the girl who shaved her head back in 2004--
This is just the sexualized, female version of the hysterical trope that goes: "I am just so upset that I have to have my way."
I wonder where she is now, six years later.
I am no fan of Islam but there are practical reasons for banning the face veil and the burqa. You don't know who is in a burqa. If you are a man in a swimming pool for men only and a burqa comes in the room it could be embarrassing. Picture a terrorist escaping from a police net in a burqa. The face veil is not so draconian but how would you like to be a convenience store clerk alone in the store with a face veiled person? Or a policeman making a traffic stop of a face veiled person.
Ha. Didn't I say it. They, men and women, should shave their heads in Iran to counfound the draconian mullahs. No mullets for the mullahs.
I didn't think about it in France though.
Good for Sarcozy. School and other public places should be religion neutral to avoid all this regligous stupidity.
In addition, as pointed out, there are very practical reasons to ban burqas in public. Safety is just one of those. You need to be able to see the face and know who you are interacting with for safety.
The other is basic human interaction and common courtesy.
Remember the woman in the US (can't remember the State) who wanted to have her photo on her offical Driver's License Identificiation Card....be of her in a burka? WTF! How can you indentify anyone in a burka. Thank God idiotic political correctness and pandering to Muslims was beaten down this time and she was refused.
I’m going to be all ACLU on this. Please note they ban Crucifixes and I bet, Yarmulkes. France seeks to ENFORCE SECULARISM, that’s no better than enforcing Catholicism, Judaism, OR Islam. This is what happens when you have no Bill of Rights, No First Amendment Right to Press, or Religion, to exercise or establishment of. And this French law steps on both ideas…France is denying the exercise, whilst establishing their secular one.
Lastly, it’s attacking the wrong thing. It attacks burkhas or chadors, not ISLAMIC RADICALISM. I don’t care if you wear a scarf or a potato sack, but your society must enforce its laws equally. No tolerance for honour killings, womyn’s centres for those trying to escape the violence at home, and the like. And along the way you damage Jews and Catholics, too, people innocent in this case. It’s like Gun Control, it punishes the INNOCENT more than the Guilty. I don’t get to wear a yarmulke, but Mustafa is still likely to be beating his wife and threatening his daughter for bringing dishonor on the family.
This was about the simple headscarf, not about burqas and full face veils.
I can see banning burqas, face veils, skimasks, etc. as public security measures, but banning headscarves, crucifixes, and other religious symbols, as the French have done, is a flagrant 1st. Amendmnet violation in American terms.
The Guardian writer, Nabila Ramdani, doesn't say whether or not she is a Muslim.. Not in her profile, nor in her article..
If the writer is going to defend her faith, readers ought to have full disclosure..
Why the cloak of secrecy ;)
Liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Multiculturalism is a poison pill to liberal societies.
Unbridled tolerance permits the intolerant to rise unchecked, and evil to gain a foothold.
"But democracy can defend itself only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy. His aim of destroying democracy itself, of actively seeking an absolute monopoly of power, is shrewdly hidden behind the citizen's right to oppose and criticize the system.
Paradoxically, democracy offers those seeking to abolish it a unique opportunity to work against it legally. They can even receive almost open support from the external enemy without its being seen as a truly serious violation of the social contract. The frontier is vague, the transition easy between the status of a loyal opponent wielding a privilege built into democratic institutions and that of an adversary subverting those institutions.
To totalitarianism, an opponent is by definition subversive; democracy treats subversives as mere opponents for fear of betraying it principles.""
Jean-François Revel
I can see banning burqas, face veils, skimasks, etc. as public security measures, but banning headscarves, crucifixes, and other religious symbols, as the French have done, is a flagrant 1st. Amendmnet violation in American terms.
Really? How about the banning of the Ten Commandments publicly displayed in schools and courthouses? You ok with that then?
How about that giant cross on top of a hill or at Ground Zero that offends atheists and must be removed? The first amendment rights of the christians are being offended, doncha think?
If my religion is nature based and
I'm a nudist by religious devotion, you think I should be able to go to school or the DMV naked as a profession of my religious faith?
Hari Krishna should be allowed to chant in the classroom?
If you are going to apply United States mores to France, why aren't you concerned about separation of church and state instead of first amendment rights? It seems that in the US "the made up" separation of church and state rights trump first amendment all the time.
/wink
Actually, I'm not a nudist by RELIGIOUS devotion.
That was just an example of how ridiculous the first amendment right to religious expression can be.
The French prove, once again, that they can't get anything right, although I have to say Nicolas has more guts than The Zero (granted, most of the women here do, also).
Dust Bunny Queen said...
/wink
Actually, I'm not a nudist by RELIGIOUS devotion.
Oh, foo, you had me all hot and bothered ;)
If she really wants to tweak the French, she'd shave her pits and legs too.
Where's commenter "peter ironrails" when you need him?
Religious freedom overrides the law unless there's a compelling need to do so. At least, thankfully, here.
The Catholic Church (yeah, it's a tough sell to make, ok?) forbids the ordination of women priests. That clearly violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution (among other laws).
But there is no compelling need for us to ban such practices.
Islam (and yes, many other religions) has some truly ugly practices. But this isn't the way to change them.
That's a very romantic protest, but...so what?
The French have different laws than we do regarding religious expression. They kicked out the papists a while ago and want to keep their civil society secular. If you want to wear a shroud at home, go for it.
This is a classic societal conundrum. Do you take action before it's a crisis (and risk looking bad), or do you wait until perhaps an artist/filmmaker is slaughtered in your streets to take action?
I support Sarkozy.
"niqab" and "burqa" are great scrabble word choices when one lacks an available letter.
The WWF online free version of the game for iPhones is quite fun. I enjoy playing it with my wife. Games can last for days.
I would not wish more Sinéad O Connors on anyone.
Even the French.
If only we could be more like the French, sending every kid to great kindergartens with good food, then let most sink into apathy and leftist resentment when they realize the old 'power structure' monarchy and huge state-private complex noblesse oblige thing is still pretty real.
If only we had Bernhard Henri Levy speaking up for our Muslims and their noble, foreign ways against the 'power structure'.'
If only we could be more vicious in our 'colonialism', perfect and protect our language to an absurd degree, and build little Le Corbuiser like castles in the sky where all can live in sweet, equal freedom, according the latest social science metric guru...
The food would be good, the wine excellent, and evenings along the Seine delicious
chr1, très bon.
Anyone who doesn't recognize the threat that Islam--yes Islam, NOT jihadism--poses to Western Civilization is suicidally naive.
Well they are not called ragheads for nuttin'! LOL!
Here in metro Detroit were I live we are just crawling with these vermin. When you see them you can not help but thinking that they want to be singled out for persecution.
France like the United States and the rest of the Western world has its foundation based on Christianity. We should not let these people thumb their nose at us. If they don't like it then they can go back to their part of the world.
When I visit my sister in Cleveland she has radical jews living in her neighborhood whose men walk around with Goldilocks curly hair falling down the side of their heads. They look ridiculous and are also thumbing their noses at our country. Cops they should carry scissors. Problem solved.
There may only be a couple thousand who wear the Islamic women's garb or whatever, but I think they need to address the tendencies of their Islamic immigrant masses to riot out of control across the western half of the continent when they don't get their way.
Agreed Virgil. But I would also add jews and other religions that do not understand that our society is built on the foundation of Christianity.
Yea France sure is a shithole isn't it.
Sniff sniff.
Smells like a moby in here. Buzz off Tidy, New Hussein Ham's workin' this side of the street.
Get back over to DU where they censor your speech or DKos where they publish fake polls.
Well not for a godless socialist like you Garage Mahal. It is a perfect little litter box for you. Can you leave tomorrow?
GMay wrote ", but I think they need to address the tendencies of their Islamic immigrant masses to riot out of control across the western half of the continent when they don't get their way."
Well when the blacks did the same here in Detroit we gave them Affirmative Action. Fourty years later Detroit is so much better. Not!
I left Detroit for the burbs right after the riot. I got less for my home than what I paid for it ten years before. Within five years it was burned to the ground.
The law misses the root of the problem while treating a symptom. Muslims worship a man who was by his own account a brigand, slaver, murderer and pedophile to name just a few of his many vices. He delighted in spreading his vile creed by the sword. There is no place for such a religion in the modern world. None.
I am an atheist so I don't have an invisible man in the fight, but I have no problem with Christ and how he lead his life. Mohamed on the other hand would not be allowed to roam free in any decent society. Any discussion of Islam has to start and end with these facts. We can't afford to pretend that all myths and superstitions are equally harmless. We can't afford to pretend that those who follow Mohamed's example are just practicing a religion like any other.
Muslims need to be told these things at every opportunity and it is the argument that the free world needs to make. Eventually it will sink in. In the meantime we kill the ones who take their religion seriously enough to act as Mohamed did just like we would put down rabid dogs if they were attacking innocent people in the streets. Islam can be tolerated only to the extent that its adherents do not follow the example of their prophet.
Moral relativism will get us all killed as surely as if we pulled the trigger ourselves. Not all cultures, or religions, or economic systems are equal. We are now witnessing the consequences of pretending otherwise.
If she really wants to tweak the French, she'd shave her pits and legs too.
Where's commenter "peter ironrails" when you need him?
Present and accounted for!
Anyway, if this girl wanted to tweak the Americans she'd shave her ... oh, never mind.
Peter
I wonder how many of those women who wear those outfits choose to do so or are pressured by their families into doing so. The compulsion of full frontal facial nudity in schools and public places is probably liberating for such women......But maybe not. In China, that whole footbinding thing was something that was invented by a woman and enacted by mothers on their daughters. The stupidity of the human race simply cannot be underestimated. Women should be allowed to wear burqas or whatever, but they should be treated the same way a southerner who choses to wear the Confederate flag in NYC is treated. I think it would be particularly helpful if the big brothers of burqa wearers were pelted with pig offal by their classmates.
The best historian I've read on Islam is Bernard Lewis.
As he points out (and explains in brilliant prose), Islam has won adherents for more than 1,500 years across several continents. Billions of human beings - real life people - have found solace in its teachings.
To dimiss it as some sort of remnant of paganism or to view it solely through western cultural lenses misses the appeal that it has on people. People, real flesh and blood human beings.
That's not moral or cultural relativism; that's not defending its misogynistic teachings or other ugly tenets. It's trying to understand the fuller richness of the religion.
How can such teachings grab the sympathy of such vast numbers of people from various cultures and nations for more than 1,500 years?
The writer who says "only 2,000" najibs and burquas, not a big deal...writes as an Islamoid of Paki origin in the UK, where the full veil or worse has spread like wildfire as men push at as a symbol YOUR women submit to your radical Islamist veiws.
Nabila Ramdani guardian.co.uk
And even al-Guardian posters say that lax tolerance of medieval religious impositions on women has cost many UK women their liberty and freedom and France is RIGHT to try and nip it in the bud while it is under 2,000...vs. the 100,000 women with bags on their heads that the UK faces.
==================
"traditionalguy said...
She makes a powerful point. The freedom of religion that Americans all enjoyed for 150 years up until the athiest snobs on the Supreme Court revoked it, is a Unalienable Right that two bit Bullies dressed up as Government Employees need to take their grimey little hands off of.."
That is a big pile of ignorant tripe. Unalienable natural rights did not include complete religious freedom - the Founders recognized that many faiths and creeds existed completely contrary and hostile to Western and Protestant Enlightenment values. Values the Nation was built on.
THe Founders believed that not only Islam was a threat, but many other foreign religions, pagan NA religion, Catholicism, and Judaism.
They were right on all of them, even Catholicism - it was not until the mid-19th Century that the Popes stopped their executions in territory they held or demand of ultimate political say over Catholics globally.
The Founders agreed Muslims are alien and dangerous to our values. Many expressed the opinion that Jews, the Other, were also subversive to Western norms and values. Warned the same Jews that America would not tolerate "two sets of rules - one for TRibe, and one for the goys" - in business dealings. That human sacrifice, as practiced by Africans, S Pacific Islanders, Voodoo cults - meant they needed to be Christianized by Americans, their foul practices wiped out..(Which we did) The Brits felt the same way about Hindu customs completely inamicable to existing English law.
The US stamped out human sacrifice by Hawaiians, Pacific NW, and Great Plains Indians. They criminalized Voodoo. Kept Catholics out of office until the Wars of Italian Independence forced the Popes to give up claim of temporal power over all Catholics. We forced the Japs to give up Shintoism as a condition of ending Occupation. Forced the Mormon cult to give up bigamy. Don't allow Rastas to smoke their sacred herb.
We also of course cracked down on dangerous secular creeds as well as sectarian ones. Dangerous foreign anarchists, radicals were sent packing. So much for total freedom of speech as well.
The idea of complete religious freedom is rubbish. Just as the idea of right to keep and bear arms does not extend to your own stocks C-4 or anthrax spores.
SMGalraith, people like you are the problem. You are constantly making excuses for these godless heathens. What does it matter how many and how long these savages have existed? THEY ARE TRYING TO DESTROY US! GET IT?
The Arabs are overtly out to ruin our society. Their counterparts, the jews, are covertly trying to do the same. They are doing so for the same reason. They hate Christians.
I just wish the Arabs and the jews went back to their part of the would and do what they do best-kill each other.
Better them than us.
You're free to be anything you want here, as long as it's a Protestant.
garage mahal said...
Yea France sure is a shithole isn't it.
Worst thing they did was get rid of the monarchy, the country hasn't been worth a damn since.
Which is a very weird thing to say.
Tidy...
I'm confused FIRSDT it was the/we Jews who are the problem, THEN the Muslims and NOW SMGGalbraith...which one is it? Jews, Muslims, or SMG?
C4 I think your "history" is a bit off...as MD, one of the ORIGINAL colonies, was an obstensibly Catholic colony, I doubt the Founders had too many problems with Catholics.
And so who cares if it wasn't until the 19th C. the Pope ended executions...the Papal States were HIS temporal domain...and the US has NEVER ended executions, so that's a bit of a red herring isn't it?
But Hooray for keeping Catholics out of power...so tell me C4 what is so inimical to democracy of Catholicism? And why should we be happy that WASP's discriminated against them?
And wasn't the REAL Catholic problem that they were Irish, and therefore not very Anglo and that later they were Italian and Polish...not very WASP?
@Althouse
Don't you think Tidy Right the Moby is over the line for exclusion?
george hits the tgt here--he nails it. Islam is a totalitarian political ideology/philosophy dressed up in the robes of religion. Given half a chance every Islamic nation is an unyielding theocracy. And where Muslims are not in the majority they constantly foment insurrection, whether in China, Thailand, the Philippines, the Balkans or Russia--you name it. Sharia Law is the heart and soul of Islam. People fool themselves if they don't think one of the prime objectives of Muslims in western societies is to carve out a protected place for the practice and acceptance of Sharia law--which is totally inemicable to western values.
Pogo is right to quote Revelle, someone who unfortunately is not read widely enough, as his observations are particularly trenchant regarding the vulnerability of democracies to totalitarian ideologies.
And DBQ, that drivers license dust-up took place in Florida The most dismaying aspect of the matter was that the judge did not throw the suit out on its face, but ACTUALLY ACCEPTED IT!--and held a "show cause" hearing--thereby honoring the possibility of the validity of the complaint by even allowing it into court to show it the respect of a hearing. Thus becoming alarming for the same reason that there actually could be found four Supreme Court Justices who didn't believe the 2nd amend in the Bill of Rights applied to individuals. IMHO, with judicial thinking like these examples (the suit should have been thrown out and the 2nd amend decision 9-0) our civilization rests on a very slender reed indeed.
Jews, Muslims, or SMG?
Well, if it's me, I want a raise. That's for damned sure.
Not going to destroy the west all by myself for the measly crumbs I get. No sirree.
And it's Mr. SMG from now on. Harrumph.
hat's the point of it all? There are only around 2,000 women in France who actually wear a burqa (the cloak that covers a woman from head to foot) or a niqab (the more genuinely Islamic veil that conceals a woman's face)
Well, one minaret is only one building that takes up minimal ground space in relation to other buildings.
To a country that desires skies of liberty, though, a minaret casts a much larger shadow than just it's bricks and mortar. The Swiss figured that out, didn't they?
You are right Joe, SMGalbraith is just being a useful idiot here. Thank you for the correction.
I never understood why if we have freedom of religion in the USA, then why can't Muslims have 4 wives in the United States which they are allowed in their religion?
I am the State thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Not going to destroy the west all by myself for the measly crumbs I get. No sirree.
You're not doing it all by yourself the/we Jews are helping...I'd offer you some greater compensation but you know how we Jews are.
Joe - The Founders had plenty of problems with Papistry. The US never had a problem with hard working people like Germans, Swedes, Catholics, setting up colonies as long as they didn't grab the levers of power.
Maryland had many Catholic leaders, but was OK with the South because they were committed slaveholders.
It wasn't until 1836 that a Catholic justice was allowed on Scotus, and that was the excretable Roger Taney - whose loyalties were listed in descending order - Jacksonianism, the Constitution, Maryland, America, slave ownership, then his Catholic beliefs. (which he specifically said in hearings when he was nominated as Jackson's Ag did not include any loyalty to the Pope over US law.)
The next Catholic was put on the Court in 1894, after the Pope renounced authority over matters affecting the Catholics in temporal matters, in America and elsewhere. The 1st Catholics, the ones that raised concerns about Papal control, were not Irish or Italian - but British ones, then French ones.
(Joe Biden, BTW, is the first Catholic Vice President, ever)
And NOW C4 the SCOTUS is ENTIRELY:
1) Jewish; or
2) Catholic.
You don;t know the joy that brings me, knowing that it must drive the likes you oand Tidy up the wall....
Papists and Kikes, and a N*gger, and womyn...is there a WASP male left on the court, or will ther be after Kagan's appointment?
At a time when our country is under threat from Muslims, jews and atheists, I can't get that worked up about Catholics.
Tidy, how big of you. God, Ann, what a crew you have cultivated here. You and Meade must be so proud!
Wander on back to DU or BartCop or Feministing Jake...check out the Smirking Chimp, too...get back to me about being proud.
You're not doing it all by yourself the/we Jews are helping...
That goes without saying.
Although I can never quite work out that: "Jews are Commies" and "Jews run Wall Street" narrative.
I mean, which is it folks?
SMG, it's simple enough:
1) Either depending on the audience, Blacks generally get the Wall St. Spiel...the middle class/working class get the socialist spiel.
2) Both, after all, even in Glenn Beck Land, Progressive Wall St., with lotsa Jews, works hand-in-hand with large government.
There's enough "evidence" to support either claim, and really big money, big business, and big government aren't always enemies.
I hate to state the above for fear of being branded some type of Tidy/C4/New Ham/Buchananite nut jub, but it is true.
IBM would have been glad for stringent environemntal regulations and mandatory health care, in the early 1990's. Sure it would drive up the cost of PC's, but that's good...IBM was being done in by small companies that were more nimble. Anything that cost everyone equally was to IBM's advantage. IBM could affrd it and Adamant Computers, couldn't...leaving IBM standing and Adamant Computers bankrupt.
And IBM would have been gald to lobby Congress for it, and claim it was good for "workers." too.
Tidy and C4 go off the rails when they see someone with "stein" at the end of their name advocating for something. Doesn't mean "stein" and his/her large corporate confreres AREN'T "conspiring", only that it isn't a JEWISH one.
If Tidy and C4 read more on Public Choice Theory and less Protocols of the Elers of Zion they might awaken to see a real threat to liberty and prosperity....
She.can.go.eat.some.of.the.brown.stuff ...
Look it up on search engines. Some of her breathens sisters are routinely burned with flames and acids in ...
Fwance.
Like in the USSA, this type of barbarous behavior is buried by the press.
These people have to go. Useful idiots who support them States sides by commission or by omission have to go. Useful yidiots have to go ...
It.is.going.to.be.fun.fun.fun.
Nothing was learned from WWII, everything was forgotten ....
With those here who are so happy the French State will tear crucifixes from the necks of students, along with veils from Muslim heads, make it clear that this isn't about freedom of religion, but the triumph of one religious framework--if you will, an a-religious, secular one--in place of that which built France, that is Christendom.
So it's not about "freedom," it's about power for one tribe over another tribe. So forget all the high-sounding gas about more tolerance or more freedom; it's really just us vs. them, with all the predictable boilerplate about how evil "they" are, while "we" are the children of light.
As C.S. Lewis used to point out, so much of this is a rebellion of the branches against the tree. A secular humanism cannot draw on itself, but must draw from the matrix from which it sprung, which is Western Civilization, which is Christendom. Like it or not.
Now, what this really calls for is not so much "separation of church and state," but how about separation of state from indoctrination? Why is the former so important; but the latter is not?
If the increasingly powerful State is going to mandate a value-system, then hands off indoctrination: "leave those kids alone!"
Even I, with almost no knowledge of internets lore, know Tidy Righty is a total fake.
Is this part of the new grassroots movement moving the nation foreword, The Coffee Party...er, whatever it's called now?
Tidy, you are not very good at what you do. Maybe you should carry signs in protests or something.
I agree with Fr. Martin Fox concerning Christendom. Very well said.
This is simply a public safety issue. Once they get into their own homes and mosques they're free to do whatever the fuck they want.
Even though I'm all for Constitutional rights - I prefer erring on the side of secularism. Secularism never killed anyone.
Fr Martin Fox - France is a majority secular nation. If Christians were the majority - Sarkozy wouldn't be able to do this. Whatever happened to majority rules?
Secularism is underminding France and most of the West. As pointed out by Fr. Fox getting back to our Christian foundation is the only answer. The West was not forged by the Star of David, Mohammad or Budda for that matter. No, our foundation is Christian.
SMG, it's simple enough:
Right, like I'm going to trust a Jew to explain it.
The Nation of Islam calls it "tricknology."
You tricknologists just aren't going to get your way with me.
(And if my sarcasm was any heavier my computer would crash through the floor and drop to the center of the earth. I add this just in case Tidy Righty wants to put me on his mailing list)
Alex:
I don't make a fetish of "majority rules" and I see no reason for anyone who prizes liberty to do so. I.e., for me, "majority rules" can be useful in service to liberty, but as you seem reasonably bright, do you really need me to explain to you how easily "majority rules" can imperil liberty? I mean, it's not even hypothetical, it happens.
So given that they do come in conflict, I choose liberty; do I infer from your comments you prefer "majority rules"?
I prefer secularism enforced by the hand of the state as religion has proven itself to be too harmful to society.
It should be noted that those who have attacked me on this thread either deny that Christendom is the basis of our Country or are tellingly quite on the subject. They attack me because they know I am right but they either worship at the alter of secularism or some non-Christian religion. I call on those attacking me to show your cards.
I proudly worship at the "altar" of secularism. But that worship is for reasoning and logic, rather then blind faith to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Where is your Jesus?
Is not Fr. Martin Fox, with his talk of Christendom and Western Civilization, just a better educated version of our resident dum-dum Tidy Righty?
Alex:
The body count for secularism is pretty high. Particularly in France.
People are sinners and they more easily do terrible things to one another than anyone is comfortable with. This is both a fairly self-evident truth, able to be demonstrated solely on reason, and it corresponds to Christian doctrine.
Ergo, for all your complaints about crimes committed in the name of religion, one can counter with crimes in the name of irreligion. Not terribly persuasive. The universal factor is not religion, but human proneness to evil.
What is certainly not demonstrable, as of yet at any rate, is the premise that underlies the secularist's argument: that human rights are more secure where Christianity is extirpated, than where Christianity is drawn upon.
I will concede that it is possible this can be demonstrated, but not, I think, as of A.D. 2010. We will have to wait quite awhile; because I'm not sure you have much a track record cultures that were once Christian, but have have the Christianity wrung out of them.
Until such time, then, to assert--or assume--that such post-Christian, secular societies/cultures are safe places for human rights, is lacking in empirical support. I.e., an act of faith in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Meanwhile, we have the actual, albeit miniscule, datum of this thread, with secularlists advocating that folks are "free" to wear crucifixes, so long as they stay inside their homes. Some advance in "freedom" you secularists are granting us.
Fr.Martin Fox: Ouch!! Perfectly put.
It's weird that moby sockpuppeteer "Jake" (aka Coffee Guy / L.E. Lee / NotAHillbilly / ChiMan / UW Law Babe / Jimmy / Fiscal Conservative Guy / In The Mood / Sussed) is always right here to pretend that "Tidy Righty" should be taken seriously.
I bet that if Althouse put up IP addresses (or consistent hashes thereof, a la AoS) on the comments we'd see that a lot of people are talking to themselves under multiple accounts.
Secularism never killed anyone.
Ever heard of the White Sea Ship Canal? Kolyma Gold Mines? The Baikul-Amur Mainline...the Great Leap Forward? The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution? The Khmer Rouge?
"Secularism" killed upwards of 120 million last Century...far more than "religion" ever got, either in gross or per capita terms.
Robespierre installed the Throne of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral. As later events demonstrated, Reason was not such a beneficient god. To Fr. Fox's observation that man is prone to evil, I would add that he is never so evil as when he feels that he has transcended his fallen nature and is working to fulfill some larger, higher plan. In our era such fanatics were more often Marxists and other secularists than Christians.....But I think everyone is missing the point when they attribute these foolish garments to religion. I think we should all consider the possibility that women are really, really stupid. I was born into a society where women for no useful purpose wore girdles and foundation garments, and I will die in a society where women, for no useful purpose, maim themselves with tats, silicone, and piercings. Dysmorphia is to women as hubris is to men. It's part of their nature. If you think Robespierre was a damn fool for installing the Throne of Reason, compare him to Marie Antoinette who routinely wore wigs that weighed fifteen to twenty pounds.....Everyone is blaming male religious fanatics for these dumb garments, but I think we should consider the possibility that women are the conduits for such madness.......In China, foot binding was invented by women and inflicted by women upon their daughters. Men are not naturally attracted to deformed feet. They had to be led to that place by stylish, fashion forward women. I'm all in favor of sloe eyed virgins, but even in Muslim lands I doubt if men instinctively are attracted to a vulva with painful scar tissue instead of a clitoris. This is something that only a woman, totally committed to respectability, would inflict upon her daughter. The Mullahs were raised by women and perhaps they taught them the wrong lessons....I hope these comments lead to greater understanding and more tolerance.
This has historical and spiritual precedent with monks, various draconcian punishments for women, Sinéad OConnor , etc.
I don't see the problem.
There is the solution that Hasidic Jewish women use- wigs. It's not real hair they are showing. They keep that covered. It's more nutty in a way than shaving your head, but it's a common practice.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा