*DAMN R6 Forum

French Fume Over Proposed Ban on Beards (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=7&u=/ap/20040121/ap_on_re_eu/france_banishing_beards_2)

...a government minister's call to ban beards and bandannas from classrooms along with Islamic head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and Christian crosses...

Give me a break...

I really do not think we can blame France as a country for this one.  We really should blame that guy's parents.  Anyway, he's obviously in his own little world, and I'm sure France will not pass such a measure.  They get enough shit for everything else.  I do not think they would want this hanging over themselves as well.

.::|N| Noto

As a devout atheist, i even think they are going to far.

The french don't like the A-rabs either, maybe our countries will get along one day ;)

What a doo lally crackpot. keep religion out of the eduction hell yeah but ban beards? what was this guy smoking?

This isn't france...this is some mad dude who hasn't got a freaking clue.

Ferry made the comments during a parliamentary debate, where lawmakers questioned whether the wording of the bill was tough enough.

President Jacques Chirac says the law's goal is to protect France's secular underpinnings.

It sure sounds like France to me BFG.  The lawmakers questioned if it were "tough enough"?  What makes you say it's just one extremest?  

Holy Cow bucc i didn't notice that bit.. Are these guys for real? Banning beards?!.... In principle i agree that mixing religion with education at a young age is a mistake... but "protecting France's secular underpinnings" i do not understand...

maybe 4 or 5 or 6 extreamists? ;)

mind you i don't have a very high oppinion of Chirac... its almost as low as Tony blair... but not quite.

If the french are able to ban beards, would this be their first victory?

I actually argued against this point on the phone with my mom. It seems like a pretty far stretch, but my mom insists that it is reasonable for them to demand secularity in every aspect of their state. You guys probably should learn more about the cultural conditions in Southern France before making up your mind too quickly, even if I am leaning toward agreeing with you.

I'm of two minds on this.  First, I don't like it when non-american citizens tell us how our country should be run (usually in the form of telling us we are wrong), and I think other countries should be able to govern themselves as they see fit (with the notable exception of cases like Bosnia and Somalia, where wholesale murder was taking place, and some other cases which justify wars)

On the other hand, I know how I feel about the separation of church and state, and how it should be applied here, in the USA.

You see, there is a difference between teaching a religion and allowing one free practice of religion.  What France is doing is not allowing the free practice of it.  For a more home bent example, prayer in schools.  I don't think that schools should lead prayers, but I don't think they should stop kids that want to prey from doing so either.  It's not their place.  

Separation of church and state does not equal atheism, but some people seem to think it does.  It means the state shouldn't influence you, one way or another.  It shouldn't be involved in the church, and vice versa.  By denying the rights of people to freely practice their religion, they are, in fact, influencing a religious decision upon these people.  How can that be right?  I'm lucky enough to have been educated all over, in different countries.  I've even attended some religious schools.  Just to point out a simple fact, they do teach evolution at the catholic school down the street (They teach both sides of the issue and let the kids see it for what it is), and they also have quite a few moslem students enrolled, and respect their traditions / devotions.  I realize this is a little off topic, but I'm a bit tired of hearing from the uninformed thinking that schools can't teach both.  I'll let you netfone with a teacher from that school if you don't believe me.

So, I say, let the French be fascists, it's their country, and fascists need a home too.  As long as they don't start "nationalizing" their belongings and killing them off.  

But I also say that people who beat the drum about separation between church and state should look at HOW it was meant when it was written, not at just the words.

I agree with each of your points. Separation of church and state should be interpreted as: You can pray in school, and you can learn in church, but we won't force you to pray in school, and we won't force you to learn in church.

Ok, maybe that was oddly worded, but you get the idea.

Wait, I thought the French were already busy banning red scarves of something. Like the frogs have any fashion sense.

Did anyone see the recent "Frodo" clothes lines outa Frogland?

Hey snipe...fuck you

Congrats, im sure you scored high points in the anti-france posse

He is now our leader joka,
he hasn't gone though enough puberty to grow a little mustash,
but he soon will and france better watch out.

I think you guys are sortof missing the point here. This rule applies to publicly funded institutions, which includes schools, but also hospitals and the like (and it's France, so theres A LOT of other stuff). The issue is allowing religious symbols in places that are funded by the (secular) state, so if you want to open a private religious school in which everyone can wear headscarfs, bigass crucifixes and yarmulkes you are more than welcome too. The issue of the headscarves in schools has been a big one in France for a while and there was no clear policy on the issue from the top. Furthermore, France is one of the few countries to have genuine separation of church and state. If you think about the context, as tasting was saying, this makes a lot more sense.

Bucc talking about religion and eduction.... how do you feel then about the fact that, as i am aware, some schools in some states in the US refuse to allow the theory of Dawinism to be taught... Insead children are basically told that god created the world in seven days!

this just sux  >:(

french are about to demonstrate
nobody agrees with this law except some fucking politics  :-X

lets make the revolution  ::)

*** a french rat

PS : someone gets a razor for me ?

The issue has grown out of proportion.

I heard in the news they made the decission to ban scarves in schools out of health (safety) reasons. The girls who wear 'em even wear 'em during gym class, which is way to dangerous. The governement doesn't want to get the blame of a death kid. That hung herself up during a trampoline exercise, because her scarve got stuck on the basket.
To ban beards would be a bit to much... But they prolly had a good reason also. This isn't about a religious thing, its about healthcare (and safety) during special classes where the scarve (and mb beard) can cause damage to the pupill itself.

Everyone in France has a right to exercice his religion, hell I never saw so many religions in one country, even in one city like Paris.
Kids will still be able to exercice their religion in school, they even have special classrooms to pray.

Some ppl saw this thread as another way to start flaming France. Others found it a good point to start argueing about the fact of religion in schools. Let the argueing continue and the flaming stop!

th.Sent, belgiumese

when i first heard about this a couple weeks ago i hadn't even thought about the separation of church and state, right and wrong debate. instead i can't stop thinking that this is gonna make france even more of a target, not from americans here on the forums, but from islamic extremists all around the world. and more importantly from within their own borders. doesn't france have europes largest muslim population? how are the protests going? any suicide bombings yet? this is exactly the sort of issue that if america had done it, you could bet your grandma's sweet ass that we'd be called the most evil and disguting nation ever by all the middle eastern nations and european countries just like france, and a world-wide jihad would be called (another one). for security and separation of church and state issues i understand why they'd do it. don't approve of it, but i understand it. but at this time in history i just think it's a bad idea and will only bring france problems, more specifically terrorist attacks onto the french people.

Abe, please go back and read my post about context of "separation of church and state".

Separation of church and state never meant at "godless" state.  It meant that no church would have political power.

I don't know much about the French constitution.  BUT, here, the government is not allowed to make a law prohibiting us from our religious freedom.  So making us take off religious garments or icons is unconstitutional here.

I realize we have a lot more athiests now then ever before, especially amongst the young, however, that does not change "separation of church and state" to equal an athiestic state.  That was communism.  

Remeber, I'm a liberty nut.  And nobody has the right to tell me what or how to practice my faith (or not to).  As for the French, I don't know if they have this protection in their constitution.


I don't buy that at oll.  Not one little bit.  I live in the largest moslem concentration in America (look it up), and they do not infringe on rights of the students with an excuse like that.  Any teacher that put the tramp under the rim should be lynched, not to mention that the whole scenearo is beyond far-fetched.  And I'd love to hear a real safety reason to ban beards.


Couple things.

1) These are localities, not States (not since the monkey trials long ago).  So it's not very wide spread.
2) These are in the "Bible Belt".  Not just a bunch of very religious Southern Baptists, but Redneck Southern Baptists (yes, there is a difference).  Which brings me to my mixed feelings on it.

I think it's a shame that kids are shielded from any education.  They should be exposed to as much as possible, even if it's just theory (as religion and darwinism both are, btw.  There are still holes in Evolution).

However, I also believe that it is every parents right to bring up their children their own way.  And if that includes only the teaching of one side or the other, I think they have that liberty, even if I don't agree with it.  So, it's ok that they have gathered in communities like this.  It's no different than the Amish communities, or any other religious community.

The only stipulation I'd like to see is that they don't get State or Federal funding if they don't teach a core curriculum (and evolution would be part of it in my opinion).  I don't know enough about these communities (because I haven't lived in one myself, just have some relations that do) to know if they get government funds.

totally agree.. Although i do feel to an extent that it is a childs right to choose themselves. kids go to school to be taught how to learn, and we should be giving them the options and choices that let them choose whatever path they may decide on....
I respect parents wish's that they children be taught in a certain way but even if there was no funding i would disagree with them simply being able to teach whatever they liked. Do parents have the right to choose what knowldege their children are going to be allowed access to? i think thats a difficult one to find a clear line on...

And on another note when do you decide when and when not someone is practising a religion? @ one point ( don't know if this is still the case) thousands of people tried to form a new religion of somthing stupid of star treck or star wars.... it was rejected despite the hundreds of thousands of followers... Who has the write to make these desicons?

Yes.  In my opinion the parents have full rights on what education their children receive.  This isn't a case of child abuse or molestation.  You can't prove the lack of a god any more than I can prove his existence.  That being the case, there can be no proven harm in not learning evolution (or in not learning a religion, it cuts both ways).  So who makes the decision on what's important for the child to learn, the parents.  Period.  That's liberty.  The government should not have a say in it.  Especially given that it's not a hard theory, not even an important one really.  

Think about it.  It isn't math, reading, chemistry or biology.  It's evolution.  How much good has the study of evolution actually created?  How will not knowing the theory of evolution hurt the child's future (especially when taking into account what these people consider good occupations)?  Do you need to know thing one about evolution to be a doctor?  A lawyer?  A vet?  How many occupations out there do you need this knowledge for?  How many will it even be of any use for?

Now, don't get me wrong, I've already said I believe in a rounded education where the child should be fed ALL the info.  My point here is, these parents don't agree with that, and they've chosen to live their lives in a different way then I'd choose.  And this is a GOOD thing.  It is good that they can find a place to practice their own culture (or subculture, as the case is).  And the child isn't helpless, they are free to break away from the nest, to cast off the restrictive beliefs of that community once they come of age.  But yes, it's the parents right to bring up the child in that environment, since it really is not causing any harm whatsoever (not being the best solution doesn't equal harm).


Simple, the courts.  

That's part of their job in both our countries.  It is the courts jobs to help define and interprate the law, and how it should be applied.  I've read the theory behind decisions of this nature (recognizing a religion) and it pretty much ran along the lines of people seeing it as a religion, it being about something greater than the people involved, not for profit, and the judge accepting that it is a true belief.  Don't even think about quoting that though, it was years ago that I read a little snip on it.  Things like the cult of star trek are not religions, just look at how most of them are for profit (and let's not discuss the Catholic Church now, because that's a different can of worms).  On the other hand, you'll notice that in some famous trial a while back, one jury member did wear a Star Trek uniform in court, and after talking to the judge, it was allowed.  Yes, she was a huge nerd, and said they made her remove her phaser.  But, I'm all for allowing the wackko's the freedom and liberty to do their wackko shit as long as it's of no harm to others.

So anyway, back to the point, it's the courts job to make these decisions.  If a government (federal down to local) challenges the validity of a religion, the courts have to rule (assuming that the people fight it, which they would if it is really a religion).

*Sniffle*

This is truly a great honor for me. I would like to thank the following people for making this happen: Jeb. France. Myself. And... psst... Jeb... who else is in our posse?

Ahem. Moving along.

THANK YOU! G'NIGHT!  8)

The problem is, everyone is born into their religion. And in many cultures if you disagree you will be smited.

We should shoot people who think darwin shouldn't be taught in public school. I went to a catholic highschool and learned all about darwin, and yet public school kids can't? I don't see the sense in that.

People who think the 10 commandments should be posted in schools or on state owned land are  fools. At catholic school, we didn't have the 10 commandments anywhere, and yet the public school kids should?

I really believe that separation of church and state can only go to a limit, you can not ban personal beliefs or their personal symbols of their faith. However i firmly disagree with any laws or regulations being made that are based off religious beliefs. Religion shouldn't be pushed on people by the government, and beliefs shouldn't be limited.

and here is a weird link that tries to prove creationism over darwinism
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn36/darwinism.html

oh and another shot at france for the road
http://www.iht.com/articles/123525.html
with france's history i wonder why they would want to piss off the arabs

Those in charge are in charge for a reason, they have years of experience and education (atleast here where i am) they dont pick a average joe from the street to run the show (ppl like us). I'll bet my left nutsack (lost the right one to noto) that no one from this forum has even been in a city council. And yet whatever anyone does theres allways some mofo who thinks he knows better. No you dont have the right to make your own oppinion, NO you dont have the right to say it out loud and you sure the fuck dont go around making threads about what you think are stupid laws when it aint even your own country.

This thread is just plain flame (as is this), go back to school snipe

Dressing codes in schools....ooooh its an outrage

Hell yes I do, at least where I live.


Hell yes I do, at least where I live.


Two things:
1) where are you when non-Americans do this with the USA.  Silent, that's where.
2) I ask you to take notice that I haven't bagged on France in any of those view points.  Closest I can was to say if they want to be fascist (which this law is) then that's up to them.


Bush has years of experience and education as well.  Just goes to show that your criteria are not foolproof, cause I can show proof of the fools that pass it.

I simply had to comment on this. Are you using the word "you" as in yourself, or are you using it as in me? Or Americans? Because I sure as hell know I can say whatever the fuck I want, whenever the fuck I want, as loud as I fucking want, and to whoever the fuck I want. [Size=.5](Disclaimer: As long as what I am saying does not imply anything illegal, such as conspiring to commit murder)[/size]


Ok, I'll go back to school, and when I get there, I can wear whatever the fuck I want, with or without religious symbols. I can wear a beard (but Jeb says I havn't gone through enough puberty yet ;) ) or I can wear a Yarmulke, even if I'm not Jewish. Oh! I can learn about Darwinism in Biology, or Creationism in Theology or Myth and Bible.

I'm not saying that the dress codes are an outrage. I'm saying that the limitations of religious figures are an outrage. I decided to find an example, so I did a quick google search, and the first thing that popped up was this (http://www.geocities.com/hardingpj/uniformspdquestionstoask.html).

That part was for snipe, but-a...yea well that was more or less venting.



1) Show me a thread where american laws are mocked, and even if you did manage to dig one up, i might have just missed it.

2) I didn't say that either, i just saw the thread name and thought that snipe was acting like a jerk. Still havent read this thread, probably should.

I might have come off as anti-usa which wasent my intention or how i feel. I just hate this whole anti-france movement which ofcourse isnt the whole usa.

Some thoughts about the subject so i dont just flame:

Dress codes (we don't have school uniforms over here in finland) in schools are to make the enviroment feel more safe. So that certain pupils dont walk around with clothes somehow promoting violence...no wait. Ahh, ok i something about this briefly on Tv once. Bottom line, even if they dont have school uniforms in france, if islamic clothes and such make pupils feel unsafe, then off with them i say. You go to school to learn. When in rome...

Joka,

I'll make it simple.  Look at any of the threads about guns and gun control.  Then see the numerous comments by non-americans about our gun laws and their far fetched views about people being shot in the streets here (or at least their comments about it).  

There are quite a few.

If you don't like those, try the laws about the prisoners held in Cuba right now, and comments on how stupid and wrong we are to not treat them as POW's.

If you need exact threads, they can be supplied.

In conclusion, yeah, you should read the whole thread.  You should also make sure that if you are just directing them at an individual, it's clear.  Helps to keep it from breaking into this =D.