Chirac Backs Law to Keep Signs of Faith Out of School

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:42 pm

In the strict sense, I don't think atheism is a religion, though it is a belief. Athiesm denotes a complete lack of faith in some sort of higher entity, and it insists on some method of quantifying anything such as a higher entity. Religious faith relies on simply a feeling that a greater power exists, and it does not demand evidence.

That being said, can a complete lack ("nothing") ultimately constitute something?

I would certainly argue, however, that some athiests can be just as blinded, arrogant, dogmatic and ideology-driven as certain of their counterparts who subscribe to a particular set of theological or religious doctrines.

*sigh* This probably belongs in the poll thread about religion, but oh well

In relation to the thread topic, we should perhaps also consider that secularism is not necessarily athiesm. Rather, it is a refusal to overtly recognise, any particular variant of faith.

Personally, I think this law does evoke shades of Fascism, and I am not endeavouring to justify it.. but I have also studied French history in depth.. As others have stated, the attitude is in keeping with long held views in the country.

Further, while it should be done in a more democratic manner, IMO there should be a clear separation of church and state. When these two are not separated, Fascism is equally likely to arise.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:47 pm

Originally posted by dragon wench
I would certainly argue, however, that some athiests can be just as blinded, arrogant, dogmatic and ideology-driven as certain of their counterparts who subscribe to a particular set of theological or religious doctrines.

This is the sense in which it existed during the First French Republic, and has remained as a strong undercurrent within French thought and politics. Consider: the First Republic actually built a Greek-style Temple of Reason. For a great deal more detail, I strongly recommend the British historian Simon Schama's Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (Knopf, 1989).

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:17 pm

Originally posted by Sojourner
Atheism is not a religion.

I agree with DW here...there is a distinct difference in 'Not Believing' in anything, and dogmatically believing that there is "NOTHING'. When a person holds so tightly that there is no god, then he is excercising his belief systm just as one who maintanes that there is, or are a God or Gods. Just as it can not be proven by scientific means that there is a god, it also can not be proven that there is NO god. It all comes down to a matter of belief and personal choice. When those belief patterns are organized into a platform, have criteria, and promote agendas, it then become an organized religion. So I would have to disagree with you Sojourner. Atheism is a religion. It is the religion of promoting the belief that there is no god. While I do not have a problem with this in and of itself, I do feel it hypocritical for one who espouses that particular faith system to insist that they are not folowers of any religion.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:20 pm

Originally posted by fable
This is the sense in which it existed during the First French Republic, and has remained as a strong undercurrent within French thought and politics. Consider: the First Republic actually built a Greek-style Temple of Reason. For a great deal more detail, I strongly recommend the British historian Simon Schama's Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (Knopf, 1989).

It also figured heavily in the Communist platforms.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 9:45 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
It also figured heavily in the Communist platforms.

As an interesting aside, the Bolsheviks were in fact greatly inspired by the French Revolution and actually used to sing La Marseillaise prior to adopting their own anthem.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:27 am

Why do people use the word fascist this easily? It undermines the meaning of the word and with that the warning that goes with it. Whether you agree with Chirac or not has very little to do with him or his ideas being fascist. Anyways organized institutional religion to me is one the most harmful moral, intellectual and social diseases in existance. But maybe I'm prejudiced because of my background. Belated Merry Christmas anyways....

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:56 am

Originally posted by Scayde
I agree with DW here...there is a distinct difference in 'Not Believing' in anything, and dogmatically believing that there is "NOTHING'. When a person holds so tightly that there is no god, then he is excercising his belief systm just as one who maintanes that there is, or are a God or Gods. Just as it can not be proven by scientific means that there is a god, it also can not be proven that there is NO god. It all comes down to a matter of belief and personal choice. When those belief patterns are organized into a platform, have criteria, and promote agendas, it then become an organized religion. So I would have to disagree with you Sojourner. Atheism is a religion. It is the religion of promoting the belief that there is no god. While I do not have a problem with this in and of itself, I do feel it hypocritical for one who espouses that particular faith system to insist that they are not folowers of any[/] religion.

For a moment, I thought you had changed your stance on Atheism there, Scayde

Anyway, just a note. Atheism is not a religion, as par the defination of the word:

Religion:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Atheism lacks spiritually, reverence of a supernatural power, creation story, beliefs/worship in a person, or institution,and spiritual leader. The closest bit of religion it has in it, is the final bit, about a cause, princple, or activity done with devotion, but that isn't even the sense of devotion to a higher being.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:15 pm

Ok Tom you ask for it. As always i apologise for my comments, but in the past year, i have become more politically conservative than before. This religious law is specifically targetted at Muslims. The jewish "hat" i am sorry but i dont know what they call it, is not that common in europe. Also after the 2nd world war, the french are not stupid enough to target judaism.

However following sept 11th, attacking Islam is en vogue. You have had racist and xenophobic parties come to power in many european states, ones that have a specifica anti-muslim platform.

The present law violates a persons basic right to practice their religion freely. A basic freedom aloted in democracies. Yet it is being revoked in france, with Denmark, Holland and other European nations following suit.

In England the headscarf is worn most obviously and readily accepted. It is done by choice.

I have one question for those who say the head scarf is repressive. What exactly is repressive of wearing a piece of cloth over your head so that your hair is covered? Its just a freaking hat.

If i sound upset, its because i have lost all faith in people to rationalize the difference between an oppressive religion and oppressive actions taken by individuals. Huntington was right.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:48 pm

Originally posted by CM
<snip>
The present law violates a persons basic right to practice their religion freely. A basic freedom aloted in democracies. Yet it is being revoked in france, with Denmark, Holland and other European nations following suit.
<snip>

The ruling by the courts in Denmark, I mentioned( although sparked by scarfs) are not targeted at Muslims.
It simply stated that a place of buiness are allowed to implement dress-codes if the employes are to present a "uniform" apperance towards the customers.

The specifics are of a supermarket chain that have stated they wish no visible religious or political markings presented by their employes. Futhermore this also includes "weird" hair colours (for instance green), piercings and the likes.
The courts mearly ruled (in what can become a principle ruling in the country) that a buisness has the right to enforce a dress-code.

I think the case will go to the danish supreem courts also - because it has been appealed. (not sure though)

CM · Post by CM » Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:51 pm

Xandax the question though no is, can religious freedom be overruled by a "dress code"? If it can, that that is a serious infringement of individual civil liberities.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:58 pm

Originally posted by CM
Xandax the question though no is, can religious freedom be overruled by a "dress code"? If it can, that that is a serious infringement of individual civil liberities.

Then one could take this futher and ask if ruling against a hair colour can be deemed "repressive of human rights" etc.

In my opinion - a buisness has the right to want to present itself to the public in the manner they so chooses. (so in that respect - I agree with the court ruling)
The "public" (or other companies) then have the rights to "punish" the company by refusing to do buisness with it.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:36 am

I think some are placing the principle of Freedom of expression of Religious Belief(of the childrens in the public school) in a to high position.
Principles are not absolute, actually, they are "egoist", one opose to other and the maximization of one mean the supression of all others.
Btw, freedom is identified by many aspects, for example, the freedom of relationship(gather without sectarization), that is especially important to the childrens in the school.
Be in a social context mean that we must give up of some freedoms of the individual nature. What doesnt mean to give up of the religious belief, just a major expression of it, in a space where it is suposed to be irrelevant(since the religious belief is not something in cosiderarion of the public school, sinceall childrens, of all religeons are there to learn).
Note that the religious belief is suposed to be irrelevant for the public school, cause if it is not, it would be a sectarization(a Catholic school, for example).

About the "teach tolerance", i am not really convinced that it is possible. Maybe i am wrong, but i think tolerance come from the ideia that first we are similar, than come our thoughts, choices and culture. It is a primal feeling of the perception of equality, how can it come from outside?

I still think that evidence our common points reach tolerance shorter than evidence the diferent.