View Full Version : Secular Society Threatened?
Louis VI the Fat
02-04-2010, 16:34
Disturbing developments:
Anger as Cherie Blair spares devout man from jail
Cherie Blair has been reported to the office overseeing judges' behaviour for apparently sentencing a man convicted of assault more leniently because he was religious.
The National Secular Society wrote to the Judicial Complaints Office on Friday complaining that Mrs Blair — a prominent Roman Catholic — suspended the six-month prison sentence passed on Shamso Miah, a Muslim who broke a stranger's jaw in row over a bank queue, on the ground that he was devout.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7014701.ece
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
"The Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion." So says the 1905 French law (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/1905-French-law-on-the-separation-of-Church-and-State) on the separation of church and state. Yet nowadays officials do everything in their power to promote the construction of mosques — even providing sweetheart land deals that push the bounds of legality.
A report (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/12/france-government-participates-in.html) finds that 30% of the funding for mosques in France can be traced to public coffers. While one Muslim leader credits "divine will," the real driver is politics:
The mayors involved sometimes want more control but also to win votes in tight elections. With the explosion of land prices, granting municipal land proves decisive. The emphyteutic lease has become the principal tool of mayors, even if the courts sometimes punish rents which are too low, seen as explicit financing of religion. This was the case in Marseille and Montreuil.
Since then the system has become more refined. Mayors use the additional cultural activities of the mosque, sometimes a simple tearoom, in order to give subsidies.
France is not the only Western nation to provide land for mosques, at times stretching the law to do so. The government of Argentina (http://hispanicmuslims.com/articles/other/openseyes.html) handed off a parcel appraised at $10 million for a mega-mosque in Buenos Aires, while Boston (http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/72356-Meninos-mosque/) has been embroiled in a scandal over the below-market-value sale of real estate to house an Islamic cultural center.
However, France stands out because the country, which banned religious symbols (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3474673.stm) in schools five years ago, is reputed to be the most secular in Europe. That it now finances, more or less openly, Muslim places of worship speaks to the social changes sweeping the nation and the continent. For states looking to better manage those changes, here is a good place to start: resist the temptation to bend or alter laws for the exclusive benefit of any single group.
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2009/01/famously-secular-france-now-finances-mosques
Are these isolated incidents? Or part of a larger development, a slow undermining of secular society, a decline by degrees by accomodating religious agitation?
One of my nightmares is a Christianity and Islam making common cause against Reason. The two religions are arch enemies. But as anyone who is familiar with Navaros knows, Islam is also admired in some Christian circles for its relentless, unforgiven pursuit of its own goals. Some Christians seem quite content to hide behind Islam, to ride its wave, and drown secular society.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-04-2010, 17:14
Disturbing developments:
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Are these isolated incidents? Or part of a larger development, a slow undermining of secular society, a decline by degrees by accomodating religious agitation?
A truly secular society is one which accomodates religions, not persecutes them. The first case is somewhat disturbing. The second is only troubling in it's partiality.
One of my nightmares is a Christianity and Islam making common cause against Reason. The two religions are arch enemies. But as anyone who is familiar with Navaros knows, Islam is also admired in some Christian circles for its relentless, unforgiven pursuit of its own goals. Some Christians seem quite content to hide behind Islam, to ride its wave, and drown secular society.
If Christians begin to ally with Islam is will only be because they are antagonised by European atheists. Look at the way you have framed this topic. I am a recipient of two degrees, preparing for a a third, and generally considered to be a relatively learned and reasonable man, yet what am I to make of your sustained position on thse boards.
You always oppose reason and pretty much all religion, and this makes me your unnatural and unwilling adversary. I am trying to stem the tide of fanatacism and irrationality within my own community, but in order to do that I must first neutralise you, because you will otherwise marginalise me by making "reason" exclusively a tool of the devil. So I waste precious energy on your attempts to stamp out a religion that survived both the Roman Emperors and the depravities of the Inquisition.
Aemilius Paulus
02-04-2010, 17:19
Can this be that paranoia is finally touching Louis?
To tell you the truth, I have long been infected with this fear as well... Creationism is making exceedingly worrisome progress in US... But France? Meh, my opinion is that this is just business and nothing to worry about. Politicians will always bribe constituents, and if appealing to Satanists/FLDS/Wahhabists/etc will make them win the election, they will do so (I apologise for slandering the Satanists - compared to FLDS they are saints).
A truly secular society is one which accomodates religions, not persecutes them. The first case is somewhat disturbing. The second is only troubling in it's partiality.
That is a good point, but religion tends to spread and cause all sorts of side-effects, some good, some bad,and IMO, many that are harmful for a state, especially one with French principles. From what I read, French are very serious about putting the nation first, to the point where it comes before religion. Any factions that attempt to change that pose a threat. Or so I read, anyhow...
It is just that religion worries me, because it is so, well, I hate to make such an unappealing comparison, but it is like cancer. Not that it is bad, but it sure spreads like cancer, and it quite often it focuses on the ignorant and the small-minded. The effect can be troublesome at times, because religion tends to get a grip on such individuals. And some religions, like Islam, tend to drive radicalism more than others, like say Hinduism - not all religions are created equal, and not all of them are of equal value to the society. Some are rather disruptive, and some are somewhat beneficial.
Hmm, I have too many mixed opinions here...
A truly secular society is one which accomodates religions, not persecutes them. The first case is somewhat disturbing. The second is only troubling in it's partiality.
A truly secular state would neither accomodate nor restrict any religion in any way, it would be completely neutral in all religious matters. If the state is funding religon, then it's a religious state.
Aemilius Paulus
02-04-2010, 17:35
A truly secular government would neither accomodate nor restrict any religion in any way, it would be completely neutral in all religious matters. If the state is funding religon, then it's a religious state.
Well, if it is a truly secular state, then most people would be atheist, or at least agnostic - let us suppose that. And one will inevitably see the rise of the persecution of religious folk. Sad, but true. So there are laws to accommodate everyone.
Complete neutrality would be some sort of anarchist-libertarian state, one that does not exist, nor will (at least successfully). Where there is no or little power, new power will arise to fill the void. That is why no libertarian government is feasible, not anymore than a true communist state - and even communism seems more probable to me, or at least its early stages (the one where Marx says a 'temporary' authoritarian gov't should exist).
PanzerJaeger
02-04-2010, 17:39
A report finds that 30% of the funding for mosques in France can be traced to public coffers.
Absolutely horrible. French culture, while not my cup of tea, is invaluable to Western Civilization. It is from that unique, fragile, and intangible French mindset where some of our most cherished ideals about freedom and equality have come from.
Now it appears French politicians are funding its destruction for votes. Sad times, sad times.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-04-2010, 17:40
A truly secular state would neither accomodate nor restrict any religion in any way, it would be completely neutral in all religious matters. If the state is funding religon, then it's a religious state.
Accomodate is not the same as support. If you do not accomodate religions you end up restricting them.
To tell you the truth, I have long been infected with this fear as well... Creationism is making exceedingly worrisome progress in US... But France? Meh, my opinion is that this is just business and nothing to worry about. Politicians will always bribe constituents, and if appealing to Satanists/FLDS/Wahhabists/etc will make them win the election, they will do so (I apologise for slandering the Satanists - compared to FLDS they are saints).
That is a good point, but religion tends to spread and cause all sorts of side-effects, some good, some bad,and IMO, many that are harmful for a state, especially one with French principles. From what I read, French are very serious about putting the nation first, to the point where it comes before religion. Any factions that attempt to change that pose a threat. Or so I read, anyhow...
It is just that religion worries me, because it is so, well, I hate to make such an unappealing comparison, but it is like cancer. Not that it is bad, but it sure spreads like cancer, and it quite often it focuses on the ignorant and the small-minded. The effect can be troublesome at times, because religion tends to get a grip on such individuals. And some religions, like Islam, tend to drive radicalism more than others, like say Hinduism - not all religions are created equal, and not all of them are of equal value to the society. Some are rather disruptive, and some are somewhat beneficial.
Hmm, I have too many mixed opinions here...
I could say all the same things about atheism and rationalism. Strike noted recently that there are currently more "atheists bigots" than religious ones on the forums, and this has been noted by the mods a couple of times over the last few months as well. If I were you, or Loius, I would consider the difference between people of faith and those who simply adhere slavishly to doctrine.
Meh, you have no reason to be upset.
In Belgium six religions are officially recognized : Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, Orthodoxism, Anglicalism and Judaism. Secular organisations (vrijzinnigen/organisations laïques) are also recognized.
When a religion is recognized, parents who send their children to a state school have the right to demand that their child receives religious education in one of the recognized religions.
Each recognized religion (and the secular organisations) have the right to appoint teachers for religious education in public and private schools. Salaries, housing and pensions of the clerus (priests, imams, rabbis, counselors for the secular organisations) are paid for by the state. The recognized religions and the secular organisations also receive money for building and renovating places to worship (churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.).
So, allthough I don't care about religious organisations nor secular organisations, I pay for their accomodation, as a taxpayer. I'm not too happy about it. I can understand paying for maintaining and renovating churches with a historic value as part of our heritage, but that's because of their historical value.
It's money that could be used for more useful purposes, like healthcare for example. Or a tax reduction, Belgium being one of the countries with the highest taxes and all.
Aemilius Paulus
02-04-2010, 17:48
Accomodate is not the same as support. If you do not accomodate religions you end up restricting them.
I could say all the same things about atheism and rationalism. Strike noted recently that there are currently more "atheists bigots" than religious ones on the forums, and this has been noted by the mods a couple of times over the last few months as well. If I were you, or Loius, I would consider the difference between people of faith and those who simply adhere slavishly to doctrine.
What can I say, it is human nature to be bigots :shrug:. It really is :yes::no:
I am disappointed at the rise of the so-called militant atheists, but especially among the youth, there is nothing surprising in this.
Askthepizzaguy
02-04-2010, 17:58
Slightly related, and I'll be as neutral as I can with my non-religious view:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_muslim_veil
Man denied French citizenship because he forces his wife to wear a veil.
Really? :dizzy2:
I can understand banning certain types of coverings in say, banks, official public buildings, and on your personal identification (what's the point of photographs and cameras to determine identity when you can hide inside a full body covering?), but if Muslim women voluntarily want to wear a certain style of dress, that's no one's business.
I can see where there's a problem if and when, as here, the man requires the woman to wear this dress against her will. I think that is sexist and backward and against her personal rights. But denying citizenship? Will that actually help the problem? The woman is still required to wear the veil she doesn't want to wear, and the man is still part of the country, not required to leave.
I think the French government is just being reflexive and reactionary here. It seems rational to remind Mrs. denied citizenship that her husband cannot legally force her to wear the restrictive coverings in that nation, and if he tried to force it on her with physical violence or by abandonment and divorce, he'd either go to jail or she'd get half his stuff or both or worse. Then she might either accept her situation, or decide to change it, and all options would be her choice, and she'd have all the facts at her disposal.
And if Mr. denied citizenship didn't like it, it is a free country and he knows where the border is. He can leave.
I guess where I draw the line is when religion is involuntary. I object but can do nothing when children are required to obey and follow religions, and swallow their... well... "version of the facts", but that's a parent's choice. However, I also know that when they reach a certain age they can freely reject it if they wish, so I am fine with it. But once someone is an adult, compulsory religion, mandatory religion, should be abolished.
That's my take on it. Children don't have any legal protections that allow them to reject their parent's religion, but adults do.
What bothers me in my country is that I have to pay for someone elses' religion and I don't have a choice.
I'm not an atheist, but I'm also not very religious. Maybe this will change when I get older, but at this moment, my attitude could be best described as: I don't see the need to worry about it, so I simply don't care.
Why I need to pay for the accomodations required for someoneelses' religion, however, goes beyond me. I want to pay for healthcare. I want to pay for unemployment benefits. I want to pay for pensions. I want to pay for a lot of stuff that actually helps people or is necessary to make sure the country works.
But I don't see any good reason to be forced to pay for someones' religion.
By giving religions tax-exempt status here in the US, we all basically pay for everyone's religion. To go beyond that with active funding seems very wrong.
Kadagar_AV
02-04-2010, 18:20
I for one am more scared of the fact that "well, if you cant prove me wrong, I might very well be right" - in some areas of the world seem to be a valid argument.
al Roumi
02-04-2010, 18:32
IMO the issue on Cheri Blair's judgement is disturbing, but I'm cautious about the reporting of it as the Blairs have for a while now been labeled as strongly religious, in a negative way. It could easily function as a tag for the media to exploit and I'm sure they have here.
The second issue is just plain old corrupt politics. Nothing new there. If the funding was going to, say, diaspora community centres (which btw Mosques basicaly are) there would be no real scandal - unless another needy group was being overlooked or deprived.
Strike For The South
02-04-2010, 18:38
"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers" is talking about more than taxes.
These people have it wrong
al Roumi
02-04-2010, 18:55
"OSAMA Bin Laden would find himself at the sharp end of a £200 fine if he was tried in a British court, Cherie Blair said last night."
"Mrs Blair, who is actually a judge now, said the mass murderer would feel the full force of the law as it applied to people who believe in freaky sky magic and a massive, omnipotent super-being with glowing eyes and a beard the size of Texas."
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/bin-laden-deserves-a-hefty-fine%2c-says-cherie-blair-201002042438/ (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/bin-laden-deserves-a-hefty-fine%2c-says-cherie-blair-201002042438/)
Rhyfelwyr
02-04-2010, 19:54
Surely with the Mosques issue, it's not a case of the government favouring them because they are trying to promote religion. Isn't it just more about building up communities for minorities?
Askthepizzaguy
02-04-2010, 20:29
Surely with the Mosques issue, it's not a case of the government favouring them because they are trying to promote religion. Isn't it just more about building up communities for minorities?
The why they are doing it doesn't concern me particularly. It could be with the best of intent; it could be to gain favor and votes with taxpayer dollars; it could be an attempt to promote religion. Doesn't really matter why, it is a government taking money from people who don't subscribe to Muslim teachings and forcing them to pay for the building of worship to a god they don't believe in, which is not a necessary or prudent function of governance.
Rhyfelwyr
02-04-2010, 20:37
The why they are doing it doesn't concern me particularly. It could be with the best of intent; it could be to gain favor and votes with taxpayer dollars; it could be an attempt to promote religion. Doesn't really matter why, it is a government taking money from people who don't subscribe to Muslim teachings and forcing them to pay for the building of worship to a god they don't believe in, which is not a necessary or prudent function of governance.
Christians also have to pay taxes to fund a secular school system where their children will be taught things they disagree with. Not to mention funding abortion clinics etc (wasn't there a thread quite a while ago about a guy who tried to dodge taxes on those grounds?). But we live in a society, sometimes we have to contribute to things we would rather not.
I might not be up to date, and I know the OP isn't about the USA, but didn't Lemon v Kurtzman establish the principle that the government should be able to fund religious organisations if they serve a primarily secular purpose? Such as is most likely the case with these mosques in France, to help integrate the Muslim community into the society and not leave them in ghettos with no infrastructure or anything.
Interesting how you chose two muslim examples to back up your case Louis. Perhaps we should ignore the fact that the state still pays for the upkeep of every catholic church built before 1905 in France, not to mention the many catholic private schools in France who are basically under contract from the state and so receive funding from it. The fact this has been going on since France supposedly became secular hardly points to a recent undermining of secular society, if anything France was never truly secular, especially if the definition you are using is that of public money being used on religious buildings.
it is a government taking money from people who don't subscribe to Muslim teachings and forcing them to pay for the building of worship to a god they don't believe in, which is not a necessary or prudent function of governance.
Exactly the same argument could be made by muslim people living in France who have been helping fund the upkeep of all the churches since 1905, yet I haven't seen a massive uproar from either muslims or atheists about how outrageous it is non-catholics are funding catholic places of worship. The amount of double standards in this thread is quite laughable really and there is clearly a (not so) hidden anti-muslim agenda rather than just anti-religious.
Askthepizzaguy
02-04-2010, 21:12
Christians also have to pay taxes to fund a secular school system where their children will be taught things they disagree with.
Some people disagree with the concept of welfare. That's not the point.
The secular school system is for everyone. Church is for the religious. That's why the public keeps them separate, and those who don't like it can have private religion schools.
Not to mention funding abortion clinics etc (wasn't there a thread quite a while ago about a guy who tried to dodge taxes on those grounds?). But we live in a society, sometimes we have to contribute to things we would rather not.
Yes, and you could live in a society where religion is funded by the government. But several nations have said that is not their policy, and so funding of religious buildings and religious services goes against that policy.
It's not about disagreement, it's about the separation of the state from the church and giving it a neutral stance towards it. Not funding it, and not outlawing it.
But it is the not funding it part we're speaking of.
I might not be up to date, and I know the OP isn't about the USA, but didn't Lemon v Kurtzman establish the principle that the government should be able to fund religious organisations if they serve a primarily secular purpose?
What is the primarily secular purpose of a muslim mosque?
I'm sure some legal buff could find some case which ruled against the government funding of religion in a much more related manner, and I leave that up to the lawyers to argue over.
The bottom line, and common sense, of the matter is: A church or a mosque and its functions are religious in nature and if I live in a country where one of the founding principles is no state establishment of religion or favoring of religion over non-religion or other religions, then the public funds provided by everyone should not be used to pay for the construction or funding of the church or church services.
That's why they have tax-exempt status, so they can contribute to the community in their own religious way, through charity.
So separate from the state that they don't even have to pay taxes. But that's not enough it seems, there needs to also be government funding? I don't think so. Not in my nation anyway. And if I saw instances of that I'd cry foul.
As for your remarks about abortion: in this particular nation it is still legal and recognized as a medical procedure. And there are restrictions on if and when public money is ever used for it.
Such as is most likely the case with these mosques in France, to help integrate the Muslim community into the society and not leave them in ghettos with no infrastructure or anything.
They don't have to live in ghettos. As I understand it they are allowed to live wherever they please in that country. They have infrastructure: power, water, sewer, roads, police, etc.
Religion is not infrastructure, it's a luxury that people pay for with their own private funds, at least in what I consider free societies.
Exactly the same argument could be made by muslim people living in France who have been helping fund the upkeep of all the churches since 1905, yet I haven't seen a massive uproar from either muslims or atheists about how outrageous it is non-catholics are funding catholic places of worship. The amount of double standards in this thread is quite laughable really and there is clearly a (not so) hidden anti-muslim agenda rather than just anti-religious.
Then they have every right to challenge that if they wish.
I have no double standard here, public funding of religion is not what I stand for, and I'm happy to live in a country that for the most part understands and respects that.
The fact that their laws or practices are hypocritical is not a basis for creating more hypocrisy and silliness; if they want to de-fund religious institutions more power to them.
The Wizard
02-04-2010, 21:20
I wasn't aware "Christianity" and "Islam" were entities capable of independent action. That's very interesting Louis, where can I contact the CEO of Islam?
We have nothing to fear. It is true that the first article in particular is very disturbing - but honestly I don't like to believe something purely because it is in the laughable paper that is the Times. But again, if it is true it is disturbing. however I am sure that those amongst in society who hate secular society and the increasing strength of the secular movement in all walks of life, would be able to post a vast many threads like this - whereas the whole underpinning of this thread is the fact that actions in the articles are so rare and thus worrying when they are seen. The secular movement is making strides all the time, I for one, am not worried.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-04-2010, 22:52
We have nothing to fear. It is true that the first article in particular is very disturbing - but honestly I don't like to believe something purely because it is in the laughable paper that is the Times. But again, if it is true it is disturbing. however I am sure that those amongst in society who hate secular society and the increasing strength of the secular movement in all walks of life, would be able to post a vast many threads like this - whereas the whole underpinning of this thread is the fact that actions in the articles are so rare and thus worrying when they are seen. The secular movement is making strides all the time, I for one, am not worried.
An amusing perspective, given the ever-increasing congregation in religious buildings, particularly fundamentalist ones, and hummanity's natural affinity for belief systems.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-04-2010, 23:32
What bothers me in my country is that I have to pay for someone elses' religion and I don't have a choice.
I'm not an atheist, but I'm also not very religious. Maybe this will change when I get older, but at this moment, my attitude could be best described as: I don't see the need to worry about it, so I simply don't care.
Why I need to pay for the accomodations required for someoneelses' religion, however, goes beyond me. I want to pay for healthcare. I want to pay for unemployment benefits. I want to pay for pensions. I want to pay for a lot of stuff that actually helps people or is necessary to make sure the country works.
But I don't see any good reason to be forced to pay for someones' religion.
I don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, pensions, or unemployment -- I'd rather see most of that privatized. However, I have to agree with you emphatically that being forced to pay for someone else's religion seems wildly inappropriate. I'm not really all that thrilled with the tax exempt status religions enjoy here -- but nobody in the USA expects someone else to pay for their church. What a system!
Kralizec
02-05-2010, 00:15
A truly secular society is one which accomodates religions, not persecutes them. The first case is somewhat disturbing. The second is only troubling in it's partiality.
What is does "accomodating" entail in this context?
Well, if it is a truly secular state, then most people would be atheist, or at least agnostic - let us suppose that. And one will inevitably see the rise of the persecution of religious folk. Sad, but true. So there are laws to accommodate everyone.
Complete neutrality would be some sort of anarchist-libertarian state, one that does not exist, nor will (at least successfully). Where there is no or little power, new power will arise to fill the void. That is why no libertarian government is feasible, not anymore than a true communist state - and even communism seems more probable to me, or at least its early stages (the one where Marx says a 'temporary' authoritarian gov't should exist).
Even in countries wich have religiously neutral constitutions, I suppose it would be a bit naive to expect that no religious influences would enter into politics...most European countries have christian democratic parties.
But coming from a judge :rtwno:
...
The mosque subsidies...I suppose that if a scouts group or a birdwatcher's society could get the same bags amounts of money fom the state for their clubhouses it would all be fine and dandy, but I doubt that's the case. I suppose these French* officials had the best intentions of reaching out to the muslim community and whatnot, but all in all they're just paltry excuses for violating one of the most basic tenets of western states in general, and France in particular.
*it's not actually limited to France sadly
The Wizard
02-05-2010, 01:13
An amusing perspective, given the ever-increasing congregation in religious buildings, particularly fundamentalist ones, and hummanity's natural affinity for belief systems.
There is nothing "natural" about belief. Have you ever seen a monkey pray? Moreover, church attendance has been dropping at increasing rates since the bloody '60s. 1000s of churches across the West close their doors every year.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-05-2010, 01:40
There is nothing "natural" about belief. Have you ever seen a monkey pray? Moreover, church attendance has been dropping at increasing rates since the bloody '60s. 1000s of churches across the West close their doors every year.
.... and thousands of new Mosques and Evangelical Churches open each year. How can you not see it? You think that just because Catholic and main-line Protestant Churches struggle religion is dying? As far as "natural" goes, name a human culture without a belief system?
Meneldil
02-05-2010, 02:04
Man denied French citizenship because he forces his wife to wear a veil.
I can see where there's a problem if and when, as here, the man requires the woman to wear this dress against her will.
I don't think it can be any clearer. No religion in my tea, thank you.
Such as is most likely the case with these mosques in France, to help integrate the Muslim community into the society and not leave them in ghettos with no infrastructure or anything.
No just no. The right to not have to fund any cult has been conquered after a long and difficult fight. Muslims deserve no special treatement. We don't care about integrating muslims, we care about integrating people.
Louis VI the Fat
02-05-2010, 03:11
I am a recipient of two degrees, preparing for a a third, and generally considered to be a relatively learned and reasonable man, yet what am I to make of your sustained position on thse boards.
You always oppose reason and pretty much all religion, and this makes me your unnatural and unwilling adversary.I never mistake 'religious' for stupid. Christians can also be 'reasonable'. 'Reason' with a capital 'R', however, (to me?) is a cultural-historical term, decidedly non-religious.
I dislike hypocrisy, so I shan't be one and confess that yes, I wouldn't mind Christianity to dissappear altoghether, to render it a historical phase that Europe/the West had to go through. 'Through Christianity, above Christianity', as the saying goes.
Nevertheless, my verdict of Chritianity is not entirely negative. Indeed, it has many positive aspects. The relationship between Christianity and learnedness, or science, for example, is not one of strict antagonism. Christianity has played a role in the very development of, the direction of Western thought. (As above, 'through Christianity etc').
I must also confess that I would prefer sharing a metro with Christians over one with non-religious folk, or with people from several other religions. I would have a better chance of getting home unscathed.*
Having said all that, how would you feel if a suspected criminal is defended with the words 'Your honour, my client has seen the error of his ways. He is now no longer religious, doesn't attend church every Sunday anymore, so we ask for a sentence redution'.*
For this is what lawyers frequently plead, with the difference that their client is described as 'a religious man'.
*Yes, there is a common theme to the two asterixed bits, which is not coincidental and should hopefully get me in trouble when somebody pounces on it.
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Brenus, about a year ago, openend a thread about Sarkozy's call for a 'positive laïcité'. I might as well return to some of that were discussed there:
President Nicolas Sarkozy's plan for 'positive secularism' will be fought by the French - and rightly so
We thought we'd always be spared the kind of ideological turmoil Britain and Turkey have known in the last few days. It is indeed extremely difficult, almost impossible, to imagine the archbishop of Paris suggesting "a helpful interaction between the courts and the practice of Muslim legal scholars" as Rowan Williams (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/12/religion.islam) did in Britain. And just as difficult to envisage the French government allowing religious symbols to be worn in schools, as Turkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7207109.stm) did last week, overturning the country's constitution.
In France, an overwhelming majority prides themselves on the hard-fought 1905 law of separation between church and state, a law that is crystal clear. France doesn't recognise any religion in particular but protects them all. Religious beliefs have no room in public spaces and debates. Only reason should prevail. No passe-droit nor any specific rights should be given to anyone on the ground of their religion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/13/vivelalaicite
From my cold, dead hands etc etc. :balloon2:
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Boohugh - it is entirely coincidental that the two articles in the OP should be about Muslims.
Islam is only the new kid on the block, complicating the subject tremendously. It is to another originally Middle Eastern esotiricism that some of my more militant objections to priviliges are reserved.
Unfortunately, the pope disagrees with this lack of privilige. We now have a pope who smugly states that France ought to reconsider her separation between church and state*. As worryingly, a French president who agrees with that, because he believes that 'sensitive urban areas' are plagued not by too much religion, but too little. (Perhaps he's right too...It is not Islam, it is a brew of internet-Islam, thuggery and disaffection that governs the suburbs. )
The same pope who rehabilitates the Society of St. Pius X - a far-right, anti-Republican, anti-modern, anti-Semitic, pro-Vichy, reactionary society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X). That this should've been done by a German pope with an SS past, operating from Rome, is a finesse that doesn't help either.
There is a lot of resentment over the current pope. Resulting, amongst others, in a far right ultra-Catholic group (aided by Frigide Barjot, can't deny them a sense of humour) clashing (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE52L0SC20090322?sp=true) with leftist protestors before Notre Dame over the pope.
Meanwhile, I think Catholics should be grateful that we don't raze to the ground their triumphalist Sacré-Cœur, that emblem of Catholic dominance over secular France, a short-lived dominance not for the last time owing only to their German friends.
Yet, in a bizarre twist of plot, returning all of this sidetracking nicely to the subject of the OP and Boohugh's reaction: I wouldn't raze it if only for fear of next appearing a giant Mosque on Martyr Mountain. Am I too - secretly, unconsciously, in a rather ironic mirror image of my nightmare - hoping to make common cause with the Catholics to defend the very Catholic anthithesis, the Republic, against Islam?
Louis VI the Fat
02-05-2010, 03:12
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_muslim_veil
Man denied French citizenship because he forces his wife to wear a veil.
Really? :dizzy2:Yes, really. :knight:
If he doesn't like it, he can leave.
Unfortunately, as ever, he'll stay and continue his mission to relegate women to secondary status, to abolish secularism, and to destroy the Republic that provides him with a life he apparently prefers over the one he left behind.
News reports said the man is a Moroccan citizen and a member of the hard-line Tabligh missionary movement. Immigration Minister Eric Besson said Wednesday the decision was rooted in French law, which permits authorities to reject applicants who fail to respect national values.Prime Minister Francois Fillon, who has the final say, has pledged to approve Besson's order.
Besson's office said the man's application was rejected because officials had determined that he had deprived his wife of the freedom to go about with her face uncovered.
"It was nearly a caricature because the person said: 'my wife will never be able to go out without the full veil; I don't believe in gender equality; women have inferior status; I will not respect the principles of the secular society,'" he told reporters after a Cabinet meeting.
JAG - Im am not so optimistic.
Kralizec - What are you going on about? Cheryl Blair is a mix of part Scouse, part Manc race and it is only owing to a sense of post-displacedness this brings about that I could not agree more.
Louis VI the Fat
02-05-2010, 03:14
Benedict also disagrees with UK equality laws:
Your equality laws are unjust, pope tells UK before visit
• Bishops told to fight moves with 'missionary zeal'
• Secular groups preparing protests for September trip
Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pope-benedict-xvi) marked the announcement of his first papal visit to Britain with an unprecedented attack on the government's equality (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/equality) legislation yesterday, claiming it threatened religious freedom and ran contrary to "natural law".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/02/equality-laws-unjust-pope-uk
Would any other foreign Head of State get away with a diplomatic affront of the highest order like this one?
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
In Ireland, beatings and sexual abuse were so widespread and endemic, that one wonders if some Catholic institutions aren't more fittingly described as SM camps for pederast Catholic priests.
Official report says priests beat and raped children
Orphanages and industrial schools in 20th century Ireland were places of fear, neglect and endemic sexual abuse, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse said in a harrowing five-volume report that took nine years to compile. According reports, no abusers will be prosecuted as a result of the investigation.
http://www.welt.de/english-news/article3778966/Official-report-says-priests-beat-and-raped-children.htmlIt is the Irish government that has paid compensation to these poor children. It is the Catholic church that, to the bitter end, has refused to co-operate with the investigation.
Would a non-religious institution have gotten, and still get, away with this? Would any other institute even be allowed to continue to operate if it would be suspected of mass beating and raping Irish children, only to refuse to co-operate with a decade long investigation? Would none of its members get prosecuted?
Tragically, to add insult to injury, this report was released virtually simultaneously with the new Irish anti-blasphemy act taking effect.
JAG - Im am not so optimistic.
Good you shouldn't be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromediterranean_Partnership
This is a fact by now
The Wizard
02-05-2010, 11:39
The Pope, a man in a dress. Ridiculous show. Oh, and the Sacre-Coeur is perhaps the ugliest church on the inside I have ever seen. Please do demolish it, or at least rework the interior.
.... and thousands of new Mosques and Evangelical Churches open each year. How can you not see it? You think that just because Catholic and main-line Protestant Churches struggle religion is dying? As far as "natural" goes, name a human culture without a belief system?
These numbers are an average across all religions, LOL. The small gains made in the West by evangelicals and Muslims (I doubt they even exist) in no way make up for the massive losses sustained by every other religion, even in the US.
Also, I never said religion itself was dying. Church attendance dropping like a stone means organized religion is dying (at least in the West), and I heartily cheer its coming demise.
Finally, define belief system. There are millions upon millions of people today without a religion. They have a belief system but not a religion. And considering religion exists only in the context of human civilization, you can hardly call it "natural". It is a product of our urban culture, and thus arguably unnatural.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-05-2010, 14:09
I never mistake 'religious' for stupid. Christians can also be 'reasonable'. 'Reason' with a capital 'R', however, (to me?) is a cultural-historical term, decidedly non-religious.
I wasn't suggesting you saw Christians as stupid, so much as irrational. What you have just said indicates to me that you see us as being, "rational within our delusions". That is to say, we are functionally insane but predictable and not totally disconnected from the world.
I dislike hypocrisy, so I shan't be one and confess that yes, I wouldn't mind Christianity to dissappear altoghether, to render it a historical phase that Europe/the West had to go through. 'Through Christianity, above Christianity', as the saying goes.
It is important for interlocutors to be up front, so I shall do you the same courtesy. I think we would all be better off if everyone was a Christian, and by that I really mean a Christian like me, who holds the principle of a Good and Loving God over the minute details of an ancient text.
Nevertheless, my verdict of Chritianity is not entirely negative. Indeed, it has many positive aspects. The relationship between Christianity and learnedness, or science, for example, is not one of strict antagonism. Christianity has played a role in the very development of, the direction of Western thought. (As above, 'through Christianity etc').
Occam's Razor comes to mind here; I'll be very surprised if anyone knows what he famously used it for and was as a result accused of heresy.
I must also confess that I would prefer sharing a metro with Christians over one with non-religious folk, or with people from several other religions. I would have a better chance of getting home unscathed.*
Having said all that, how would you feel if a suspected criminal is defended with the words 'Your honour, my client has seen the error of his ways. He is now no longer religious, doesn't attend church every Sunday anymore, so we ask for a sentence redution'.*
For this is what lawyers frequently plead, with the difference that their client is described as 'a religious man'.
*Yes, there is a common theme to the two asterixed bits, which is not coincidental and should hopefully get me in trouble when somebody pounds on it.
Well, my view would be that certain religions require penitence for Sins, and that aspect of the religious belief can be used as a mitigating factor. It would be the same as saying, "your honour, my client wishes to express the deepest regret for his actions...."
It isn't the same as saying "my client has given up God" because "having God" and "not having God" are not simply diometrically opposed. The "having" implies a belief structure and moral base that the "not having" does not necessarily remove.
Regardless, simply claiming a religion does not diminish guilt or demonstrate contrition.
KukriKhan
02-05-2010, 15:39
Well, I guess there's one silver-lining in the dark cloud Louis sees looming: at least France has the money to afford the luxury of building a nice place of worship. Over here, Major Cities are Turning Off Streetlights for lack of Tax Funds (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473).
Streetlights are a waste anyway, cars have lights. Reflectors work just fine do as the Danish do.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-05-2010, 16:12
It's a recession, streetlights are not the end of the world.
Skullheadhq
02-05-2010, 19:50
Also, this is a bad time to have your house on fire in Colorado, since firemen are fired (lol,fired) as well.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-05-2010, 22:36
Well, if it is a truly secular state, then most people would be atheist, or at least agnostic - let us suppose that.
That supposition is incorrect. The percentage of a people following a religion has nothing to do with a truly secular state. An atheist state is not a secular one by any means of the word - it is an atheist state. A country can be 100% Christian and secular, or 100% atheist and non-secular.
A completely secular state allows freedom of religion, and neither oppresses nor encourages it in any way whatsoever. Of course, secularism is measured in degrees, with certain states being more secular than others. For example, the United States of America, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden are all secular states, but all have different policies which could be construed as being more or less secular than others in some areas.
KukriKhan
02-06-2010, 03:07
It's a recession, streetlights are not the end of the world.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Things must be OK generally in France if during a recession they have a couple million spare Euro's to spend on a Mosque. Which prompts a question:
Since The State is paying for the building (whether mosque, synagogue, church, temple, firepit, whatever) does it follow that The State has some over-riding rights as to how the building is used, how free the access is, indeed - what kind of speech can be uttered there? When a protester enters a Cathedral or Temple, arguing with clerics about theology... when the gendarmes arrive to restore order, whose side do they take? The atheist exercising his free speech, or the monk arguing with him?
Louis VI the Fat
02-06-2010, 04:16
When a protester enters a Cathedral or Temple, arguing with clerics about theology... when the gendarmes arrive to restore order, whose side do they take? The atheist exercising his free speech, or the monk arguing with him?When a cleric interferes with my exercising my right to free speech by having the cheek to try and squeeze in a word or two I fully expect the police to teach him some manners through a lavish use of the baton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuIUo5JjjtY&feature=related
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-06-2010, 04:31
When a cleric interferes with my exercising my right to free speech by having the cheek to try and squeeze in a word or two I fully expect the police to teach him some manners through a lavish use of the baton.
*Prays this is sarcasm.*
Since The State is paying for the building (whether mosque, synagogue, church, temple, firepit, whatever) does it follow that The State has some over-riding rights as to how the building is used, how free the access is, indeed - what kind of speech can be uttered there? When a protester enters a Cathedral or Temple, arguing with clerics about theology... when the gendarmes arrive to restore order, whose side do they take? The atheist exercising his free speech, or the monk arguing with him?
The government shouldn't build them, because then there is no problem. It should be private. Then the church is within their rights to keep the atheist man out if they so desire. Now, if the atheist is using his right to free speech to disrupt a service or to cause a disruption as per public order and riot laws, then he should be removed by the police. If, after hours, he wishes to have a civil discussion with a clergyman, he should not be arrested and I do not know of any clergyman that would refuse.*
*Unless, of course, the clergyman was being harassed by the atheist.
KukriKhan
02-06-2010, 05:25
When a cleric interferes with my exercising my right to free speech by having the cheek to try and squeeze in a word or two I fully expect the police to teach him some manners through a lavish use of the baton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuIUo5JjjtY&feature=related
Pree-zactly. How else could Luther have had the unobstructed RIGHT to nail his 95 feces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses) to the Wittenberg Church? Because he helped PAY for the danged door, that's how.
The government shouldn't build them,
I think you and I and Louis, and many here, agree with this assumption of what we see as obvious truth. Nevertheless, we three have been North americanized to one extent or another, so may be biased... and many western European countries continue to build and subsidize places of worship. (Leading me to wonder about E.Europe, Asia & Africa)
I appreciate your further contribution:
...because then there is no problem. It should be private. Then the church is within their rights to keep the atheist man out if they so desire. Now, if the atheist is using his right to free speech to disrupt a service or to cause a disruption as per public order and riot laws, then he should be removed by the police. If, after hours, he wishes to have a civil discussion with a clergyman, he should not be arrested and I do not know of any clergyman that would refuse.*
*Unless, of course, the clergyman was being harassed by the atheist.
but respectfully submit that it misses the question: What is the duty of The State in this matter? To build, therefore to maintain, therefore to protect from harm, some facility for the exercise of free speech of a select group, to the theoretical suppression of the rest of the population, or some portion thereof?
However, the spirit of your post answers the question brilliantly: "Don't do it; problems arise, which gov't has no business solving" (to paraphrase).
So, then the question: Since you guys (Europeans) are still building and subsidizing church-type buildings and organizations... how can you get out of the business, if you desire?
A completely secular state allows freedom of religion, and neither oppresses nor encourages it in any way whatsoever. Of course, secularism is measured in degrees, with certain states being more secular than others. For example, the United States of America, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden are all secular states, but all have different policies which could be construed as being more or less secular than others in some areas.
Great Britain is not secular, especially as Church of England's bishops enjoy political power in the House of Lords.
KukriKhan
02-06-2010, 05:48
Great Britain is not secular...
But do you aspire for it to be?
But do you aspire for it to be?
I do, KukriKhan. :yes:
HoreTore
02-06-2010, 09:02
I will happily use my tax money to pay for proper religious buildings, if it means we'll get beautiful buildings instead of boring brick churces we have around here. Just like I happily supported spending those billions on a new opera, even though I hope to see opera burn in hell, like all other song.
My support for spending stops there though. No salaries and particularly none of those billions to the missionaries. Not a single tax dollar to support their religions except if they want to build some better looking buildings.
HoreTore
02-06-2010, 09:16
Streetlights are a waste anyway, cars have lights. Reflectors work just fine do as the Danish do.
....But still, I prefer being able to see where I'm walking when I come back from the pub at 0300 tonight....
Meneldil
02-06-2010, 12:07
I think you and I and Louis, and many here, agree with this assumption of what we see as obvious truth. Nevertheless, we three have been North americanized to one extent or another, so may be biased... and many western European countries continue to build and subsidize places of worship. (Leading me to wonder about E.Europe, Asia & Africa)
While that's just a detail regarding the grand topic, we haven't been "North americanized" in any way. France has been trying to establish a trully secular society since what, 1791? This is one of the main factor behind the country political instability since then, as the religious right has been a force to be reckoned with and that has been attempting to overthrow the republic since the Revolution (less so nowadays, since the religious rights more or less left the political field).
For the record, our presidents don't have to make an oath on the Holy Bible (TM), there's no reference to christianity, God or any superior being in our Constitution, so on and so forth. And the 1905 law established a clear and total separation of the State and of the Church, which is I think still unrivaled to this day, even in Turkey. Hence why the fact that cities are now funding Mosques is a complete and utter shame. All these mayors and city councils deserve to meet the Guillotine.
In fact, you and EMFM might have been North Americanized, but Louis has been Frenchized, and as such he's probably much more touchyl about secularism than all the people who hang out on this forum.
KukriKhan
02-06-2010, 14:13
... we haven't been "North americanized" in any way....
In fact, you and EMFM might have been North Americanized, but Louis has been Frenchized, and as such he's probably much more touchyl about secularism than all the people who hang out on this forum.
I didn't mean it in either a critical or complimentary way. And I see your point.
The Wizard
02-06-2010, 15:25
Meneldil AFAIK an American politician can also request to be sworn in with the Constitution and not the Bible. Or the Qur'an.
Meneldil AFAIK an American politician can also request to be sworn in with the Constitution and not the Bible. Or the Qur'an.
It should be the constitution.
Also, they should remove "In God with Trust" from their money.
Britain should stop singing "God Save the Queen", remove all religious influences from government, etc.
Long list of things.
Aemilius Paulus
02-06-2010, 21:21
Meneldil AFAIK an American politician can also request to be sworn in with the Constitution and not the Bible. Or the Qur'an.
Yeah, they can, but we all know what will happen if they do not... Nearly all of the Republican constituents will scream bloody murder while quite possibly a healthy amount of Americans voting Democrat will grumble. That is a notable facet of America - you have many freedoms, more than in any other nations in the world, but some, such as the freedom of speech, are in practise severely curtailed (popular backlash) when it comes to certain topics, such as race or patriotism. We all know the issues regarding race, but 'unpatriotic' speech is another, lesser-known thing that is restricted.
For instance, one that most readily comes to my mind is when Bill Maher remarked 'We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the aeroplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.' That killed half his career, if you read into the after-effects. Or that professor, whose name I forgot, who wrote that 9/11 was a result of American meddling in the Middle East and that America has no one to blame but herself. He was fired, despite apparently being on some sort of tenure (!). All true stuff, but that did not help them...
That supposition is incorrect. The percentage of a people following a religion has nothing to do with a truly secular state. An atheist state is not a secular one by any means of the word - it is an atheist state. A country can be 100% Christian and secular, or 100% atheist and non-secular.
Look, I know, that is why I said it was a hypothetical situation. I was actually defending PVC in that post, something which goes against my views. In effect, I was arguing for your side, as I suppose you side with PVC on this issue.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-06-2010, 22:02
A completely secular state allows freedom of religion, and neither oppresses nor encourages it in any way whatsoever. Of course, secularism is measured in degrees, with certain states being more secular than others. For example, the United States of America, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden are all secular states, but all have different policies which could be construed as being more or less secular than others in some areas.
I think this is right, and Freedom is a key word. In France Freedom of religion is curtailed quite heavily, and legislation going through the Lords in Britain will curtail religious freedom further here. The problem with not supporting religion in social democracies is that we support non-religious social work, and eschewing social projects backed by religious groups risks the state being anti religious.
This would make it non secular.
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 00:45
For instance, one that most readily comes to my mind is when Bill Maher remarked 'We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the aeroplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.' That killed half his career, if you read into the after-effects. Or that professor, whose name I forgot, who wrote that 9/11 was a result of American meddling in the Middle East and that America has no one to blame but herself. He was fired, despite apparently being on some sort of tenure (!). All true stuff, but that did not help them...
A guy in a tank calling for bomber planes at the first sight of heavy resistance - a hero.
3 guys alone with nothing but an ak-47 and some grenades facing off against many times their number of heavily armed and armoured NATO troops with air and artillery support - cowards.
I have never been able to understand how our leaders are capable of looking themselves in the mirror.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-07-2010, 00:50
A guy in a tank calling for bomber planes at the first sight of heavy resistance - a hero.
3 guys alone with nothing but an ak-47 and some grenades facing off against many times their number of heavily armed and armoured NATO troops with air and artillery support - cowards.
I have never been able to understand how our leaders are capable of looking themselves in the mirror.
Except the guys with the AKs believe they get to heaven the quicker the more infidels they kill.
It's only brave if you're afraid, and the guy in the tank is more afraid on average right now.
Askthepizzaguy
02-07-2010, 01:01
A guy in a tank calling for bomber planes at the first sight of heavy resistance - a hero.
3 guys alone with nothing but an ak-47 and some grenades facing off against many times their number of heavily armed and armoured NATO troops with air and artillery support - cowards.
I have never been able to understand how our leaders are capable of looking themselves in the mirror.
Men putting their lives on the line to stop a group of people who will intentionally target civilians, even use children as weapons, in order to spread an ideology of fundamentalist extremism, xenophobia, and hatred of all things non-Muslim and non-their-particular-brand-of-muslim:
Brave.
Those who are too wrapped up in their own violent brand of religion to have the courage to accept other cultures, nations, and religions, and so without scruples that they would attack people who have done them no harm, on purpose, to spread hatred and terror, all to appease their invisible man and satisfy their wanton desire for 72 virgin ladies that they will treat like trained dogs in the afterlife:
Cowardly little pieces of poo, with a healthy dollop of crazy and ignorant.
The fact that they don't have the tools to wage worldwide warfare on a level that will accomplish their objectives does not make them heroic. There is no heroism in the lone nut who shoots up a school, because hey, look, the police outside have overwhelming force. There is nothing heroic about the men in an SUV running down innocent civilians, who will later be arrested and thrown in prison to rot. There's nothing brave about a group of men who fire rocket-propelled grenades into a group of men, women and children running around a marketplace. There's nothing heroic about hijacking a plane and ramming it suicide-style into buildings filled with people who have caused no one harm.
Crazy does not make a hero. Hate is not the same as courage.
This is coming from a guy who strongly dislikes the Bush administration, questions the validity of the war in Iraq, and would like to withdraw from Afghanistan ASAP, who doesn't recommend war as the first option, only as the last option. There's nothing I love about this whole situation. But to say that the terrorists are the real brave men, the real heroes, and those who are trying to stop them from attacking the innocent, those men are the cowards, must come from a place in someone's psyche that I simply don't understand. Possibly a masochistic or nihilistic outlook on life, if I were to venture a guess.
But I'll refrain from comment except to state that I strongly disagree with that analysis. Radical madmen who hate everything except their own wacky brand of militant religion aren't heroes, they are insane cultists who have lost their way, and lost their minds.
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 01:08
Except the guys with the AKs believe they get to heaven the quicker the more infidels they kill.
It's only brave if you're afraid, and the guy in the tank is more afraid on average right now.
Yes, that's true. For the foreign legion.
But a lot of the Taliban fighters are just poor afghan people without jobs who just want those 100 dollars the taliban pays, and the 10.000 dollars they pay their family if they die. You can't honestly believe that a country with some 70% illiterates are all well learned in religion. It doesn't add up.
Don't make the issue more black and white than it needs to be, please.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-07-2010, 01:09
It isn't cowardly to lob cruise missiles, it's smart. It isn't cowardly to bomb a bus, it's crazy.
Our guys being brave doesn't mean the other guys have to be cowards. No one cares about bravery when the brave person is doing something wrong.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-07-2010, 01:23
Yes, that's true. For the foreign legion.
But a lot of the Taliban fighters are just poor afghan people without jobs who just want those 100 dollars the taliban pays, and the 10.000 dollars they pay their family if they die. You can't honestly believe that a country with some 70% illiterates are all well learned in religion. It doesn't add up.
Don't make the issue more black and white than it needs to be, please.
Well, they're illiterate because of the Taliban to start with. There a two types of fighters out there, those doing the Terrorism and those ambushing patrolling soldiers. Here's the thing, the locals are far more likely to be marines or paratroopers only carrying M-16's/SA-80's, etc. The guys getting bombed in their compounds are the hardcore bomb-makers and baby-killers.
So don't make the issue more grey than it is, and try to pretend that the 30 paratroopers attacked by 200 Taliban fighters aren't brave either.
Further, given that most of the idiots can't shoot strait suggests they aren't locals, anyway.
Rhyfelwyr
02-07-2010, 01:33
I'm sure there are brave and cowardly people on both sides.
Whatever 'cause' is right has nothing to do with bravery at all.
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 04:00
I'm sure there are brave and cowardly people on both sides.
Whatever 'cause' is right has nothing to do with bravery at all.
Spot on, my friend!
Let's take WW2 as an example. Hitler is the ultimate scumbag. His army was composed of everything from hardcore SS scumbags to a Wehrmacht supply soldier. Is that supply soldier an arse because he was part of the same entity as the SS? Guilt by association?
The German 6th army, the one who was crushed at Stalingrad, behaved like barbarian scumbags as they went through Ukraine on the way to Stalingrad, raping, murdering and looting. That's not very brave, and certainly not heroic... But when they got caught in the kessel at Stalingrad, how would you describe their behaviour? A lot of them were fighting to the very last bullet, never giving up. Is that not courage? Remember how apathetic they were from malnutrition at that point... A lot of them simply gave up and wanted to die, while others fought on to the bitter end. Is that not bravery, because they had been raping and murdering jews 6 months earlier?
That doesn't make sense.
Also Philip, you should know that Afghanistan was a piss-poor uneducated country long before the Taliban came. They sure didn't help things, but the country has been a mess for decades.
a completely inoffensive name
02-09-2010, 02:25
I want my government to be completely secularized and free of all religion because i'm afraid that if in power, the religious right in my country will take away my blaspheming Lady Gaga.
Centurion1
02-09-2010, 05:13
^gosh you are an impressive troll acin. No seriously i take my hat off for you.
Im not going to get into this arguement. Sinc ei uh know so many cowardly fighter pilots i feel i may become too inflamed.
*cough percentage of pilots who die is higher than even infantry cough*
*cough three of my dads squadron buddies died in their top of the line American aircraft cough*
*cough im personally trying to do everything in my power to become one of those cowardly us soldiers cough*
yeah im not going to answer.
a completely inoffensive name
02-09-2010, 05:32
^gosh you are an impressive troll acin. No seriously i take my hat off for you.
Thank you, that really does mean a lot to me.
CrossLOPER
02-09-2010, 06:05
I have a problem assigning the terms "good" and "evil" in complex human affairs crammed from top to bottom with many agendas.
HoreTore
02-09-2010, 11:29
^gosh you are an impressive troll acin. No seriously i take my hat off for you.
Im not going to get into this arguement. Sinc ei uh know so many cowardly fighter pilots i feel i may become too inflamed.
*cough percentage of pilots who die is higher than even infantry cough*
*cough three of my dads squadron buddies died in their top of the line American aircraft cough*
*cough im personally trying to do everything in my power to become one of those cowardly us soldiers cough*
yeah im not going to answer.
Pilots are resbonsible for more civilian casaulties than any other soldiers. Fact.
Bombs explode of course they do, a mistake has more consequences. One could also say that pilots save more lives.
Louis VI the Fat
02-09-2010, 13:34
For consideration, a quick article describing Habermas' thoughts on the 'post-secular' society.
Jürgen Habermas is perhaps Europe's foremost philosopher struggling with this issue. Two isssues: Europe stands alone in its secularism, in a world of resurging superstition. And, secondly, it falls due to disbelieving secularists to understand the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens.
Last April Habermas presented a more systematic perspective on religion's role in contemporary society at an international conference on "Philosophy and Religion" at Poland's Lodz University. One of the novelties of Habermas's Lodz presentation, "Religion in the Public Sphere," was the commendable idea that "toleration" -- the bedrock of modern democratic culture -- is always a two-way street. Not only must believers tolerate others' beliefs, including the credos and convictions of nonbelievers; it falls due to disbelieving secularists, similarly, to appreciate the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens. From the standpoint of Habermas's "theory of communicative action," this stipulation suggests that we assume the standpoint of the other. It would be unrealistic and prejudicial to expect that religiously oriented citizens wholly abandon their most deeply held convictions upon entering the public sphere where, as a rule and justifiably, secular reasoning has become our default discursive mode.
Jürgen Habermas and Post-Secular Societies (http://habermasians.blogspot.com/2003/10/jrgen-habermas-and-post-secular.html)
Jürgen Habermas and Post-Secular Societies
By RICHARD WOLIN
Among 19th-century thinkers it was an uncontestable commonplace that religion's cultural centrality was a thing of the past. For Georg Hegel, following in the footsteps of the Enlightenment, religion had been surpassed by reason's superior conceptual precision. In The Essence of Christianity (1841), Ludwig Feuerbach depicted the relationship between man and divinity as a zero-sum game. In his view, the stress on godliness merely detracted from the sublimity of human ends. In one of his youthful writings, Karl Marx, Feuerbach's most influential disciple, famously dismissed religion as "the opium of the people." Its abolition, Marx believed, was a sine qua non for human betterment. Friedrich Nietzsche got to the heart of the matter by having his literary alter ego, the brooding prophet Zarathustra, brusquely declaim, "God is dead," thereby pithily summarizing what many educated Europeans were thinking but few had the courage actually to say. And who can forget Nietzsche's searing characterization of Christianity as a "slave morality," a plebeian belief system appropriate for timorous conformists but unsuited to the creation of a future race of domineering ـbermenschen? True to character, the only representatives of Christianity Nietzsche saw fit to praise were those who could revel in a good auto-da-fé -- Inquisition stalwarts like Ignatius Loyola.
Twentieth-century characterizations of belief were hardly more generous. Here, one need look no further than the title of Freud's 1927 treatise on religion: The Future of an Illusion.
Today, however, there are omnipresent signs of a radical change in mentality. In recent years, in both the United States and the developing world, varieties of religious fundamentalism have had a major political impact. As Democratic presidential hopefuls Howard Dean and John Kerry learned the hard way, politicians who are perceived as faithless risk losing touch with broad strata of the electorate.
Are contemporary philosophers up to the challenge of explaining and conceptualizing these striking recent developments? After all, what Freud, faithfully reflecting the values of the scientific age, cursorily dismissed as illusory seems to have made an unexpected and assertive comeback -- one that shows few signs of abating anytime soon.
Jürgen Habermas may be the living philosopher most likely to succeed where angels, and their detractors, fear to tread. Following Jacques Derrida's death last October, it would seem that Habermas has justly inherited the title of the world's leading philosopher. Last year he won the prestigious Kyoto Prize for Arts and Philosophy (previous recipients include Karl Popper and Paul Ricoeur), capping an eventful career replete with honors as well as a number of high-profile public debates.
The centerpiece of Habermas's moral philosophy is "discourse ethics," which takes its inspiration from Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. For Kant, to count as moral, actions must pass the test of universality: The actor must be able to will that anyone in a similar situation should act in the same way. According to Kant, lying and stealing are immoral insofar as they fall beneath the universalization threshold; only at the price of grave self-contradiction could one will that lying and stealing become universal laws. Certainly, we can envisage a number of exceptional situations where we could conceivably justify lying or stealing. In Kant's example, at your door is a man intent on murdering your loved one and inquiring as to her whereabouts. Or what if you were too poor to purchase the medicine needed to save your spouse's life?
In the first case you might well think it would be permissible to lie; and in the second case, to steal. Yet on both counts Kant is immovable. An appeal to circumstances might well complicate our decision making. It might even elicit considerable public sympathy for otherwise objectionable conduct. But it can in no way render an immoral action moral. It is with good reason that Kant calls his imperative a categorical one, for an imperative that admits of exceptions is really no imperative at all.
Habermas's approach to moral philosophy is Kantian, although he takes exception to the solipsistic, egological framework Kant employs. Habermas believes that, in order to be convincing, moral reasoning needs a broader, public basis. Discourse ethics seeks to offset the limitations of the Kantian approach. For Habermas, the give and take of argumentation, as a learning process, is indispensable. Through communicative reason we strive for mutual understanding and learn to assume the standpoint of the other. Thereby we also come to appreciate the narrowness of our own individual perspective. Discourse ethics proposes that those actions are moral that could be justified in an open-ended and genuine public dialogue. Its formula suggests that "only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the appro-val of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse."
Until recently Habermas was known as a resolutely secular thinker. On occasion his writings touched upon religious subjects or themes. But these confluences were exceptions that proved the rule.
Yet a few years ago the tonality of his work began to change ever so subtly. In fall 2001 Habermas was awarded the prestigious Peace Prize of the German Publishers and Booksellers Association. The title of his acceptance speech, "Faith and Knowledge," had a palpably theological ring. The remarks, delivered shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, stressed the importance of mutual toleration between secular and religious approaches to life.
Last year Habermas engaged in a high-profile public dialogue with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- who, on April 19, was named as Pope John Paul II's successor -- at the cardinal's behest. A number of the philosopher's left-wing friends and followers were taken aback by his willingness to have a dialogue with one of Europe's most conservative prelates. In 2002 Habermas had published In Defense of Humanity, an impassioned critique of the risks of biological engineering and human cloning. It was this text in particular, in which the philosopher provided an eloquent defense of the right to a unique human identity -- a right that cloning clearly imperils -- that seems to have piqued the cardinal's curiosity and interest. Yet if one examines the trajectory of Habermas's intellectual development, the Ratzinger exchange seems relatively unexceptional.
Glance back at Habermas's philosophical chef d'oeuvre, the two-volume Theory of Communicative Action (1981), and you'll find that one of his key ideas is the "linguistification of the sacred" (Versprachlichung des Sakrals). By this admittedly cumbersome term, Habermas asserts that modern notions of equality and fairness are secular distillations of time-honored Judeo-Christian precepts. The "contract theory" of politics, from which our modern conception of "government by consent of the governed" derives, would be difficult to conceive apart from the Old Testament covenants. Similarly, our idea of the intrinsic worth of all persons, which underlies human rights, stems directly from the Christian ideal of the equality of all men and women in the eyes of God. Were these invaluable religious sources of morality and justice to atrophy entirely, it is doubtful whether modern societies would be able to sustain this ideal on their own.
In a recent interview Habermas aptly summarized those insights: "For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or a catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love."
Three years ago the MIT Press published Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God, and Modernity, an illuminating collection of Habermas's writings on religious themes. Edited and introduced by the philosopher Eduardo Mendieta, of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, the anthology concludes with a fascinating interview in which the philosopher systematically clarifies his views on a variety of religious areas. (A companion volume, The Frankfurt School on Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers, also edited by Mendieta, was published in 2004 by Routledge.)
On the one hand, religion's return -- Habermas, perhaps with the American situation foremost in mind, goes so far as to speak of the emergence of "post-secular societies" -- presents us with undeniable dangers and risks. While theodicy has traditionally provided men and women with consolation for the harsh injustices of fate, it has also frequently taught them to remain passively content with their lot. It devalues worldly success and entices believers with the promise of eternal bliss in the hereafter. Here the risk is that religion may encourage an attitude of social passivity, thereby contravening democracy's need for an active and engaged citizenry. To wit, the biblical myth of the fall perceives secular history as a story of decline or perdition from which little intrinsic good may emerge.
On the other hand, laissez-faire's success as a universally revered economic model means that, today, global capitalism's triumphal march encounters few genuine oppositional tendencies. In that regard, religion, as a repository of transcendence, has an important role to play. It prevents the denizens of the modern secular societies from being overwhelmed by the all-encompassing demands of vocational life and worldly success. It offers a much-needed dimension of otherness: The religious values of love, community, and godliness help to offset the global dominance of competitiveness, acquisitiveness, and manipulation that predominate in the vocational sphere. Religious convictions encourage people to treat each other as ends in themselves rather than as mere means.
One of Habermas's mentors, the Frankfurt School philosopher Max Horkheimer, once observed that "to salvage an unconditional meaning" -- one that stood out as an unqualified Good -- "without God is a futile undertaking." As a stalwart of the Enlightenment, Habermas himself would be unlikely to go that far. But he might consider Horkheimer's adage a timely reminder of the risks and temptations of all-embracing secularism. Habermas stressed in a recent public lecture "the force of religious traditions to articulate moral intuitions with regard to communal forms of a dignified human life." As forceful and persuasive as our secular philosophical precepts might be -- the idea of human rights, for example -- from time to time they benefit from renewed contact with the nimbus of their sacral origins.
Last April Habermas presented a more systematic perspective on religion's role in contemporary society at an international conference on "Philosophy and Religion" at Poland's Lodz University. One of the novelties of Habermas's Lodz presentation, "Religion in the Public Sphere," was the commendable idea that "toleration" -- the bedrock of modern democratic culture -- is always a two-way street. Not only must believers tolerate others' beliefs, including the credos and convictions of nonbelievers; it falls due to disbelieving secularists, similarly, to appreciate the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens. From the standpoint of Habermas's "theory of communicative action," this stipulation suggests that we assume the standpoint of the other. It would be unrealistic and prejudicial to expect that religiously oriented citizens wholly abandon their most deeply held convictions upon entering the public sphere where, as a rule and justifiably, secular reasoning has become our default discursive mode. If we think back, for instance, to the religious idealism that infused the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, we find an admirable example of the way in which a biblical sense of justice can be fruitfully brought to bear on contemporary social problems.
The philosopher who addressed these issues most directly and fruitfully in recent years was John Rawls. In a spirit of collegial solidarity, Habermas, in his Lodz paper, made ample allusion to Rawlsian ideals. Perhaps Rawls's most important gloss on religion's role in modern politics is his caveat or "proviso" that, to gain a reasonable chance of public acceptance, religious reasons must ultimately be capable of being translated into secular forms of argumentation. In the case of public officials -- politicians and the judiciary, for example -- Rawls raises the secular bar still higher. He believes that, in their political language, there is little room for an open and direct appeal to nonsecular reasons, which, in light of the manifest diversity of religious beliefs, would prove extremely divisive. As Habermas affirms, echoing Rawls: "This stringent demand can only be laid at the door of politicians, who within state institutions are subject to the obligation to remain neutral in the face of competing worldviews." But if that stringent demand is on the politician, Habermas argues, "every citizen must know that only secular reasons count beyond the institutional threshold that divides the informal public sphere from parliaments, courts, ministries, and administrations."
With his broad-minded acknowledgment of religion's special niche in the spectrum of public political debate, Habermas has made an indispensable stride toward defining an ethos of multicultural tolerance. Without such a perspective, prospects for equitable global democracy would seem exceedingly dim. The criterion for religious belief systems that wish to have their moral recommendations felt and acknowledged is the capacity to take the standpoint of the other. Only those religions that retain the capacity to bracket or suspend the temptations of theological narcissism -- the conviction that my religion alone provides the path to salvation -- are suitable players in our rapidly changing, post-secular moral and political universe.
HoreTore
02-09-2010, 13:56
Bombs explode of course they do, a mistake has more consequences. One could also say that pilots save more lives.
Soldiers lives? Sure, of course they do, that's why they're used. Civilian lives? no.
A pure infantry assault on Gaza, for example, would cause a LOT fewer civilian casaulties than the number we got with the bombings last year(unless you believe that Israeli soldiers are psycho's). But it would also mean a lot more dead soldiers than the 13 who died.
Was an interesting interview with a Dutch soldier few weeks back, and he said he was terrified and kept shooting until nothing moved anymore. Sure he isn't the only one. Airstrike is surgery precision.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-09-2010, 14:10
For consideration, a quick article describing Habermas' thoughts on the 'post-secular' society.
Jürgen Habermas is perhaps Europe's foremost philosopher struggling with this issue. Two isssues: Europe stands alone in its secularism, in a world of resurging superstition. And, secondly, it falls due to disbelieving secularists to understand the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens.
Last April Habermas presented a more systematic perspective on religion's role in contemporary society at an international conference on "Philosophy and Religion" at Poland's Lodz University. One of the novelties of Habermas's Lodz presentation, "Religion in the Public Sphere," was the commendable idea that "toleration" -- the bedrock of modern democratic culture -- is always a two-way street. Not only must believers tolerate others' beliefs, including the credos and convictions of nonbelievers; it falls due to disbelieving secularists, similarly, to appreciate the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens. From the standpoint of Habermas's "theory of communicative action," this stipulation suggests that we assume the standpoint of the other. It would be unrealistic and prejudicial to expect that religiously oriented citizens wholly abandon their most deeply held convictions upon entering the public sphere where, as a rule and justifiably, secular reasoning has become our default discursive mode.
Interesting, thank you.
The last three paragraphs don't quite jive with the rest though. If Secular society has sprung from Christian society and philosophy, then it was just that self-confident "narcisistic" type of religion that it sprung from.
Defining the types of religion you will allow in your secular society is not very tollerant, and it certainly misses the point of the most popular and enduring religions, all of which are what the author defines as "narcisistic".
Louis VI the Fat
02-11-2010, 00:56
I suppose this is all a matter of France vs. all your theocracies then. Or, possibly, of moderate and reasonable secular states vs. French hysteria. Either France is mad, or the rest of the world is. Not that this is an exceptional alignment. :beam:
For what it's worth, the latest brutal attack. I suppose only Meneldil will understand the unspeakable horror of the French populist left turning theocratic. :furious3:
Olivier Besancenot, the postman-turned-revolutionary at the helm of France's anti-capitalist movement, has been fiercely criticised from all sides of the political spectrum for fielding a headscarf-wearing candidate in forthcoming elections.
Ilham Moussaid, a 21-year-old Muslim woman who describes herself as "feminist, secular and veiled", is running for the far-left New Anti-Capitalist party (NPA) in the south-eastern region of Avignon.
But, despite her insistence that there is no contradiction between her clothing and her political role, Moussaid's candidacy in the regional vote due in March has angered other feminists and politicians.
In an echo of the controversy raised by recent moves to ban the full, face-covering veil in public places such as schools, hospitals and buses, critics have said that the young activist's headscarf, which conceals only her hair, goes against values of laïcité – secularism – and women's rights.
Today, in a sign of how deep concerns are running, a leading feminist group announced it would file an official complaint against the NPA's list of candidates in the Vaucluse département to protest against what it called an "anti-secular, anti-feminist and anti-republican" stunt.
"In choosing to endorse 'open' laïcité, the NPA is perverting the values of the Republic and suggesting we reread them in a manner which conforms with regressive visions of women," said the Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissives) association in a statement.
Others have expressed their shock at Besancenot's attempt to field a candidate who sees no problem with making an overt statement about her religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion) in the public sphere, a practice considered taboo.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/french-election-headscarf-candidate
There is no adjective to laïcité', not 'open' either, and it is not negotionable.
HoreTore
02-11-2010, 01:04
Banning stuff will never, ever work, unless we consider ourselves authoritarian barbarians, of course.
Education(indoctrination, if you will) and debate is the key.
Louis VI the Fat
02-11-2010, 01:21
Banning stuff will never, ever workYou'd be surprised...
How did Spain become uniformly Catholic? And how did Norway become uniformly Lutheran? What - all Norwegians read the Bible after the invention of the printing press and each one for herself decided Lutheranism was the proper theological interpretation?
Debate? We just had one. The outcome is a surge in anti-Islamic and pro-secularism sentiment.
Unfortunately, the two are hopelesly entangled. The headscarf, like the Swiss minaret, is a symbol, a scapegoat, a substitute for a deeper concern. One Europe has not yet learned to express in a civilised manner.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-11-2010, 04:15
For consideration, a quick article describing Habermas' thoughts on the 'post-secular' society.
Jürgen Habermas is perhaps Europe's foremost philosopher struggling with this issue. Two isssues: Europe stands alone in its secularism, in a world of resurging superstition. And, secondly, it falls due to disbelieving secularists to understand the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens.
Last April Habermas presented a more systematic perspective on religion's role in contemporary society at an international conference on "Philosophy and Religion" at Poland's Lodz University. One of the novelties of Habermas's Lodz presentation, "Religion in the Public Sphere," was the commendable idea that "toleration" -- the bedrock of modern democratic culture -- is always a two-way street. Not only must believers tolerate others' beliefs, including the credos and convictions of nonbelievers; it falls due to disbelieving secularists, similarly, to appreciate the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens. From the standpoint of Habermas's "theory of communicative action," this stipulation suggests that we assume the standpoint of the other. It would be unrealistic and prejudicial to expect that religiously oriented citizens wholly abandon their most deeply held convictions upon entering the public sphere where, as a rule and justifiably, secular reasoning has become our default discursive mode.
]
A nice read cher Louis. I always enjoyed Habermas. His idea of discourse as a means of enacting reality was and is the best answer to all that post modern stuff. The piece you cite here is a good one -- and very much embodies the attitude I take to the issue.
There is no adjective to laïcité', not 'open' either, and it is not negotionable.
Playing the Devils' advocate here: laïcité seems pretty intolerant towards other religions...
A muslim working for the government isn't allowed to wear her veil; a catholic can't carry a tiny cross; is a Buddhist allowed to be bald when working for the government; a Jew carrying a kippah is "verboten!" ?
Your laïcité forces itself upon others and apparently leaves no room for discussion, compromises or an open mind. Your concept is no better than [insert random intolerant version of a religion of your choice]. You cry for laïcité because "oh, teh evil religion has brought us bad things in the past", and in the process hypocritically apply similar methods (get rid of your veil/crossy/kippah/grow some hair on that skull or lose your job (= your income = your house = your car = your living standard)).
Veil? Verboten!
Tiny cross? Verboten!
Keppah? Verboten!
Laïcité? Yes! That's THE TRUTH! Laïcité? Yes! You've seen THE LIGHT! Salvation for you, enlightened one!
Granted, the burning at the stake has been replaced by something more humane, but you're still not much better than any other intolerant religion.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-11-2010, 11:58
Playing the Devils' advocate here: laïcité seems pretty intolerant towards other religions...
A muslim working for the government isn't allowed to wear her veil; a catholic can't carry a tiny cross; is a Buddhist allowed to be bald when working for the government; a Jew carrying a kippah is "verboten!" ?
Your laïcité forces itself upon others and apparently leaves no room for discussion, compromises or an open mind. Your concept is no better than . You cry for laïcité because "oh, teh evil religion has brought us bad things in the past", and in the process hypocritically apply similar methods (get rid of your veil/crossy/kippah/grow some hair on that skull or lose your job (= your income = your house = your car = your living standard)).
Veil? Verboten!
Tiny cross? Verboten!
Keppah? Verboten!
Laïcité? Yes! That's THE TRUTH! Laïcité? Yes! You've seen THE LIGHT! Salvation for you, enlightened one!
Granted, the burning at the stake has been replaced by something more humane, but you're still not much better than any other intolerant religion.
I suppose this is all a matter of France vs. all your theocracies then. Or, possibly, of moderate and reasonable secular states vs. French hysteria. Either France is mad, or the rest of the world is. Not that this is an exceptional alignment. :beam:
For what it's worth, the latest brutal attack. I suppose only Meneldil will understand the unspeakable horror of the French populist left turning theocratic. :furious3:
There is no adjective to [I]laïcité', not 'open' either, and it is not negotionable.
Quite so, replace "laicite" with "Catholicism", "Reason" with "God" and "The Republic" with "The Church" and Loius would read like a 17th Century Frenchman.
France has more atheists than any other country in Europe, because it treats all religions with equal disdain.
Tellos Athenaios
02-11-2010, 12:46
I think the point with laïcité is basically: "no religion in public; religion in private only". So the point of “tolerance” is missing a key principle of laïcité: all religion is accepted as long as you keep it in private. No religion is accepted in public; because of concerns that were very much valid 200, 150, 100, or even 50 years ago. It is how the French roll and as I see it; it is very similar to the idea that free speech in public has its limits (i.e. slander is not acceptable in public) also originally a convention given the force of law because it is considered a necessary restriction to ensure rights and integrity of all people -- not just the individual.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-11-2010, 12:53
I think the point with laïcité is basically: "no religion in public; religion in private only". So the point of “tolerance” is missing a key principle of laïcité: all religion is accepted as long as you keep it in private. No religion is accepted in public; because of concerns that were very much valid 200, 150, 100, or even 50 years ago. It is how the French roll and as I see it; it is very similar to the idea that free speech in public has its limits (i.e. slander is not acceptable in public) also originally a convention given the force of law because it is considered a necessary restriction to ensure rights and integrity of all people -- not just the individual.
The problem being, however, that it prevents certain people from assuming public office, Sikhs and Muslims being the most obvious victims. It is actually only practicable in a predominately Christian country, ironically.
Tellos Athenaios
02-11-2010, 14:21
Question this raises is of course: is this due to laïcité or due to unwilligness to adapt to French custom? IOW: Does laïcité prevent anyone from office merely because anyone happens to hold a religion, or are people prevented office because it requires laïcité and they are unwilling to conform to the custom?
There is subtle difference there: is it on the laïcité to accomodate all, or is on the French to conform to laïcité in public? French law & custom suggest the latter: i.e. any Sikh or muslim is welcome to hold public office but not if they insist on expressing their religion while on duty. That is: it is on the individual to reconcile religious believes with public duties.
Incidentally, similar practices exsist in Turkey; a predominately non-Christian country (so it is not as incompatible with Islam as might first seem). It is more of a cultural thing than strictly religious, I'd say.
The problem being, however, that it prevents certain people from assuming public office, Sikhs and Muslims being the most obvious victims. It is actually only practicable in a predominately Christian country, ironically.
If you want to work at a bank you have to wear a tie, you are hardly a victim if you refuse to wear a tie. Want to work in public office you don't wear religious symbols, I think it is perfectly reasonable. Not allowing muslim students to wear traditional clothes in schools is a stretch too far though, if they see that as harassment I don't have an answer for them, France goes a bit far there.
The Wizard
02-11-2010, 17:20
The reason I don't like the state atheism the French call laïcité is because I really don't see the problem with people wearing kippahs or headscarves to work. How exactly does that intrude on the "public sphere"? Sure I'd rather have them not wear their headscarves but there's no reason to force them not to. Smells like a state-sponsored promotion of atheism to me.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-11-2010, 17:30
If you want to work at a bank you have to wear a tie, you are hardly a victim if you refuse to wear a tie. Want to work in public office you don't wear religious symbols, I think it is perfectly reasonable. Not allowing muslim students to wear traditional clothes in schools is a stretch too far though, if they see that as harassment I don't have an answer for them, France goes a bit far there.
If you are a Sikh man you are required to wear a Turban, it is central to proper observance of the religious Law and was instituted by the first Guru. If a Turban is construed as a religious symbol, then Sikhs are effectively discriminated against in holding public office.
Laicite is a religion that requires you to relinquish your other religion in order to follow it faithfully; if you don't you are restricted from certain parts of French society.
I'm glad you raised the Turkish question, Tellos, but remember that the similar practices there do not sit so securely, to the extent that there have been several military coups to "restore secularism".
The reason I don't like the state atheism the French call laïcité is because I really don't see the problem with people wearing kippahs or headscarves to work. How exactly does that intrude on the "public sphere"? Sure I'd rather have them not wear their headscarves but there's no reason to force them not to. Smells like a state-sponsored promotion of atheism to me.
I don't really have a problem with it, in city hall I don't really care, schoolteacher neither really although I understand the argument, but I don't like telling people what to do, and hate it when they do that to me. But police, judges anything that is supposed to be neutral shouldn't have religious symbols.
If you are a Sikh man you are required to wear a Turban
So what it looks rediculous. Now a turban ok, but they probably want that ceremonial dagger as well. People should take some distance from their professional life, you aren't your job.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-11-2010, 17:55
...but you are your religion.
The Turban is mandatory, and the dagger can be stylised (as it's actually meant to be a sword).
The Wizard
02-11-2010, 18:05
In the Indian army, they fashioned a special helmet to accomodate Sikhs. So it doesn't have to look ridiculous.
...but you are your religion.
The Turban is mandatory, and the dagger can be stylised (as it's actually meant to be a sword).
Well I am an atheist, can I make my own demands. Anything mandatory is against my absolute believe in free will.
Aemilius Paulus
02-11-2010, 18:06
...but you are your religion.
Oh yeah? What about that (Hindu I believe) who just won the case in Britain allowing himself to be burned in a regular, open-air funeral pyre. What's next, the Hindus can drop the cadavers into Thames, whether to burn on a on-water pyre? I know they mainly do that on the Indus River, and it would likely be an insult for them to dispose of their loved ones in some English River, but still, the principle stands. Religions strongly incompatible with society must be influenced to change.
To hell with tradition - traditions change so often that they no longer have a claim to holiness - just push hard enough (while using ones's own brains to ensure your restrictions will not backfire to have an exactly opposite effect of mass disobedience) and you'll have a good chance of changing the tradition. Guess what the Zoroastrians like to do? Yeah, they stopped doing that in most places, despite the fact that is an enormous sacrilege to give the corpse to earth, water, or God forbid it, fire. Guess what they do now? Yep, the cremate the dead. Nice, they are doing exactly the worst... Too bad all vultures in India died, eh?
Centurion1
02-11-2010, 18:33
Things change. They are differences in Dogma and Tradition. Catholic male priests are a tradition not Dogma.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-11-2010, 19:02
Things change. They are differences in Dogma and Tradition. Catholic male priests are a tradition not Dogma.
Actually, celebacy is Canon Law, not tradition; specifically male priests are considered to be Dogma.
Aemilius Paulus
02-11-2010, 19:12
Things change. They are differences in Dogma and Tradition. Catholic male priests are a tradition not Dogma.
Wait, so what is your point :sweatdrop:? Sky burial is basically the foremost dogma for Zoroastrians...
Centurion1
02-11-2010, 22:25
dam i just got pwned in my own teachings. i could have sworn it wasn't dogma.
i know zero about Zoroastrianism besides it is Persian in heritage. And what is sky burial?
Tellos Athenaios
02-12-2010, 01:54
To sacrifice your dead to the animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial
Aemilius Paulus
02-12-2010, 02:16
To sacrifice your dead to the animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial
Yes, but I also use that term to denote Zoroastrian practise of the Tower of Silence - basically the same thing, but with without the Tibetan Buddhists practise chopping up the body prior to exposure.
Meneldil
02-14-2010, 22:01
I didn't mean it in either a critical or complimentary way. And I see your point.
Yeah yeah, I was merely pointing out that secularism wasn't invented by Americans (neither was it invented by Frenchmen anyway).
For what it's worth, the latest brutal attack. I suppose only Meneldil will understand the unspeakable horror of the French populist left turning theocratic.
Honestly,this is not surprising. Besancenot is doing his best to cater to all the embittered and resentful crowd. This dude can go to hell. But to be honest, we've had people using a Bible in the Assembly, it could hardly get any worse than that.
Your laïcité forces itself upon others and apparently leaves no room for discussion, compromises or an open mind. Your concept is no better than [insert random intolerant version of a religion of your choice]. You cry for laïcité because "oh, teh evil religion has brought us bad things in the past", and in the process hypocritically apply similar methods (get rid of your veil/crossy/kippah/grow some hair on that skull or lose your job (= your income = your house = your car = your living standard)).
You're quite off the mark. Laicité provides the same rights to every religion, precisely because it is intolerant and doesn't favor open mindedness or discussion. That was the aim from the very beginning, and guess what? Jews and Protestants applauded the idea. They never had any issue abbiding to it.
The point was specifically to prevent people from enforcing their religion on others (as catholics had been doing in France for centuries). That's precisely one of the reasons why islam cannot swallow laicité, for it constantly needs to show-off and pretend to be though and better than the others.
Laicité doesn't have to accomodate to Islam, or to Sikhism, or to Catholicism (those cried much when laicité was enforced). It doesn't have to accomodate to anything or anyone. You're allowed to practice any religion you want, just not in the public sphere. Period.
Laicité is blind, for it does not favor any sect over the other.
Edit: Now, as I'm quite a tolerant and open-minded person, please provide me with an example of something nice we're missing out because of laicité? Teachers with headscarves? People calling for murders in the street? Different public offices for different religious groups? A large population of reactionary nutjobs? Creationism taught at school?
Rhyfelwyr
02-15-2010, 00:45
I don't understand how people can justify laicite from any sort of human rights/individual liberty perspective.
How on earth is not being allowed wear a cross at work any different from having to wear a cross at work? Would you like it if that happened?
IMO, you should be allowed to be religious in the public sphere so long as you don't interfere with anyone else's freedom. So for example, if you want to pray to Allah five times a day in the middle of work, then you can't complain if the person doesn't hire you (I hate that sort of PC crap equality legislation). But if you want to wear a cross at work, does that affect your ability to do the job? Or what sort of lame excuse will people come up with to justify banning crosses? That it offends them (lol)?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-15-2010, 01:38
Personally, I'm not a fan of replacing one type of oppression with another. It doesn't promote Libertas at all.
Louis VI the Fat
02-15-2010, 02:31
You can wear a cross to work. Just not if you work in a public function. That demands neutrality.
It is not France that is oppressive. It is all of you.
All of your theocracies share the French demand for neutrality - with the difference that you absolve the members of your most powerful organised mass religions from this obligation. Whereas in France there is no such privilige for one or several groups over all of the others, simply by virtue of their crying 'religion!!'.
All schoolteachers, anywhere in the West, are requested to project some sort of neutrality in their outfit. Try going to work as a teacher in your Saturday night skimpy party dress. For uniformed public functions, demands are stricter yet. Try to wear a black leather SM mask as a police officer. You can't. Nor can you wear your favourite Darth Vader helmet. Yet a turban or a headscarf is exempted. In your theocracies, you can dress with a cross, but you can't cross-dress.
And not only does religion enjoy priviliges elsewhere, it is only the most powerful mass religions that are priviliged. In the picture below, religion one is priviliged, religion two isn't, nor is non-religion but deeply held personal conviction and mark of identity number three. Whereas in France neither one is allowed:
This man can wear his religious symbols, disregarding the neutrality of the uniform:
https://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9814/asikhmetropolitanpolic0.jpg
This man can not wear his religious symbols in public, because his religious is not part of the ones receiving preferential treatment:
https://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1316/95364108.jpg
Nor can this man wear his beloved symbols - with utter disregard for the demands of neutrality of his uniform - because his symbols - however much important to him - are not religious, and hence not deemed worthy of special exempt status:
https://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6030/trekkie.jpg
The difference is that France does not grant an exception to religious attire, whereas in all of your theocracies there is the same demand for neutrality and conformity, with an exception made for religion. In France, everybody is equal. Everywhere else, the religious are more equal than others.
Centurion1
02-15-2010, 02:33
Isn't the very concept of religious pc anti-secularist.
Strike For The South
02-15-2010, 02:43
You can wear a cross to work. Just not if you work in a public function. That demands neutrality.
It is not France that is oppressive. It is all of you.
All of your theocracies share the French demand for neutrality - with the difference that you absolve the members of your most powerful organised mass religions from this obligation. Whereas in France there is no such privilige for one or several groups over all of the others, simply by virtue of their crying 'religion!!'.
All schoolteachers, anywhere in the West, are requested to project some sort of neutrality in their outfit. Try going to work as a teacher in your Saturday night skimpy party dress. For uniformed public functions, demands are stricter yet. Try to wear a black leather SM mask as a police officer. You can't. Nor can you wear your favourite Darth Vader helmet. Yet a turban or a headscarf is exempted. In your theocracies, you can dress with a cross, but you can't cross-dress.
And not only does religion enjoy priviliges elsewhere, it is only the most powerful mass religions that are priviliged. In the picture below, religion one is priviliged, religion two isn't, nor is non-religion but deeply held personal conviction and mark of identity number three. Whereas in France neither one is allowed:
This man can wear his religious symbols, disregarding the neutrality of the uniform:
https://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9814/asikhmetropolitanpolic0.jpg
This man can not wear his religious symbols in public, because his religious is not part of the ones receiving preferential treatment:
https://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1316/95364108.jpg
Nor can this man wear his beloved symbols - with utter disregard for the demands of neutrality of his uniform - because his symbols - however much important to him - are not religious, and hence not deemed worthy of special exempt status:
https://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6030/trekkie.jpg
The difference is that France does not grant an exception to religious attire, whereas in all of your theocracies there is the same demand for neutrality and conformity, with an exception made for religion. In France, everybody is equal. Everywhere else, the religious are more equal than others.
It's posts like this that give me hope...for the backroom and for our children
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233928590_citizen kane clapping.gif (http://www.gifbin.com/982166)
Louis VI the Fat
02-15-2010, 03:26
A nice read cher Louis. I always enjoyed Habermas. His idea of discourse as a means of enacting reality was and is the best answer to all that post modern stuff. The piece you cite here is a good one -- and very much embodies the attitude I take to the issue.Trust me to not just link to an article that disagrees with me, but to link to Europe's most influential living philosopher, one of the few to be at all interested in secularism, who has reached a diametrically opposed opinion on this matter to mine.
Echochambers are teh boring, and more's the fun.
I am putting Habermas into practise simply by having brought him to attention in this thread. :beam:
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
As the adage goes: American tradtion wants to protect religion from the state, French tradition wants to protect the state from religion.
(As another adage goes - other states are not important, because France sees the West as consisting of two competing poles of equal import: France and the US, with all the other states mere spectators.
Though it is my understanding that this opinion is not universally shared outside of France)
Religious America, Secular Europe?
A good book. Or so I think, because I haven't read it yet. Several reviews are promising, notably this review essay:
Religious America, Secular Europe? A Theme and Variations by Peter Berger, Grace Davie and Effie Fokas, Ashgate, London, 2008; and “A Christian Europe? Europe and Christianity: Rules of Commitment” by JHH Weiler in the journal European View, Vo. 6, n.1, December 2007, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg.
“Advocates of multiple modernities recognize two very simple things: first that is more than one way of being modern, and second that not all modernities are necessarily secular…the United States and Europe should be seen simply as different versions of modernity.” (Peter Berger, p. 44).
“In the name of freedom, individual autonomy, tolerance and cultural pluralism, religious people (Christian, Jewish and Muslim) are being asked to keep their religious beliefs, identities and norms ‘private’ so that they do not disturb the project of a modern, secular, enlightened Europe” (Josè Casanova, p. 62).The above statements by Peter Berger and Josè Casanova from the book Religious America, Secular Europe? hint at how topical, and relevant to present day cultural contrasts and tensions between Europe and America, is this particular book. It tackles head on a very important question: why does religion flourish in America, but languish in western and central Europe?
Why are some issues about religion and public life in America nearly incomprehensible to Europeans (such as the use of religious language in political campaigns), and vice-versa (such as the French controversies over head-scarves)? The authors look at history, institutions, and the intellectual ethos of the two areas across the Atlantic pond. They also point out that "Europe" is not presently a religious unity as it might have been in medieval times.
Europe is a relatively secular part of the world in global terms. A 2004 study by Dr. Jocelyne Cesari, a research fellow at the National Center for Scientific Research at Harvard, states that “Europe is the only part of the world which has a general hostility toward religion. Europeans tend to explain every sign of backwardness in terms of religion…” Why is this so? And why is the situation in Europe so different from that in the United States? These are the key questions, clearly articulated in the first chapter, that the authors try to answer.
Subsequent chapters explore the nature of Euro-secularity in more detail (the variations on the theme) - paying attention to its historical, philosophical and institutional dimensions. In each chapter, the similarities and differences with the American case will be carefully examined. These are the basic question analyzed by Peter Berger, the eminent Professor of Sociology at Boston, Grace Davie, of the University of Exeter, and Dr Effie Fokas. The final chapter explores the ways in which these features translate into policy on both sides of the Atlantic. Moreover, the question of Euro-secularity as related to social difference (class, ethnicity, etc.), is also explored in depth.
[More of this interesting review essay here: http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10942/Default.aspx ]
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Not that even Habermas will deter me from some fireworks:
Honestly,this is not surprising. Besancenot is doing his best to cater to all the embittered and resentful crowd. This dude can go to hell. But to be honest, we've had people using a Bible in the Assembly, it could hardly get any worse than that.I knew you wouldn't dissapoint. :smitten:
Laicité provides the same rights to every religion, precisely because it is intolerant and doesn't favor open mindedness or discussion. That was the aim from the very beginning, and guess what? Jews and Protestants applauded the idea. They never had any issue abbiding to it.
The point was specifically to prevent people from enforcing their religion on others (as catholics had been doing in France for centuries). That's precisely one of the reasons why islam cannot swallow laicité, for it constantly needs to show-off and pretend to be though and better than the others.Good points. No other European country has been as succesful as assimilating Jews and other minorities.
While Jews were pogromed in half of Europe, we had a near civil war over the honour of a single one. (Then dismantled the stranglehold of one religion over the others)
Where everywhere else Jews lived in ghettoes, we elected them as heads of government. Such is the power of uncompromising equality and a refusal to reduce people to religious affiliation.
To drop a bomb (has WWII reared its head in this thread yet? Don't know. It's already page six, so about time it does) - perhaps if other European countries had protected their religious minorites as much as French laïcité does, their Jewish casualty rate in WWII might not have been several times that of France.
Now, as I'm quite a tolerant and open-minded person, please provide me with an example of something nice we're missing out because of laicité? Teachers with headscarves? People calling for murders in the street? Different public offices for different religious groups? A large population of reactionary nutjobs? Creationism taught at school?Quite. :knight: (https://img41.imageshack.us/img41/6127/mariannel.jpg)
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2010, 13:08
And not only does religion enjoy priviliges elsewhere, it is only the most powerful mass religions that are priviliged. In the picture below, religion one is priviliged, religion two isn't, nor is non-religion but deeply held personal conviction and mark of identity number three. Whereas in France neither one is allowed:
This man can wear his religious symbols, disregarding the neutrality of the uniform:
https://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9814/asikhmetropolitanpolic0.jpg
This man can not wear his religious symbols in public, because his religious is not part of the ones receiving preferential treatment:
https://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1316/95364108.jpg
Nor can this man wear his beloved symbols - with utter disregard for the demands of neutrality of his uniform - because his symbols - however much important to him - are not religious, and hence not deemed worthy of special exempt status:
https://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6030/trekkie.jpg
The difference is that France does not grant an exception to religious attire, whereas in all of your theocracies there is the same demand for neutrality and conformity, with an exception made for religion. In France, everybody is equal. Everywhere else, the religious are more equal than others.
I had to laugh when I saw the Sikh policeman because the Irish state does not allow Sikh people to wear there hat in our Garda fullstop.
Various members of the London Met came on to give voice to an outrageous attack on minority and religous rights and our politicians used various secular arguements blah blah we are a republic blah blah no established religon and then they go and spoil it all with a blasphemy law.
Meneldil
02-15-2010, 13:45
I don't understand how people can justify laicite from any sort of human rights/individual liberty perspective.
How on earth is not being allowed wear a cross at work any different from having to wear a cross at work? Would you like it if that happened?
Pretty simple actually.
If you live in a country where people are required to wear a cross to work, well, that's sad, but jews and muslims will be required to do it too, which is completely against their freedom and individual liberty. While in France, people will be asked to not wear anything so they don't offend their neighbours, customers and what not. A muslim won't have to wear a cross or a kippah, a jew won't have to wear a headscarf and so on. Equality and neutrality for all. There again I can't see why you don't seem able to grasp that very simple concept *shrugs*
Rhyfelwyr
02-15-2010, 13:52
Pretty simple actually.
If you live in a country where people are required to wear a cross to work, well, that's sad, but jews and muslims will be required to do it too, which is completely against their freedom and individual liberty. While in France, people will be asked to not wear anything so they don't offend their neighbours, customers and what not. A muslim won't have to wear a cross or a kippah, a jew won't have to wear a headscarf and so on. Equality and neutrality for all. There again I can't see why you don't seem able to grasp that very simple concept *shrugs*
People cannot infringe on others freedom just because they get offended... maybe Muslim men are offended when Christian women don't wear headscarves, doesn't mean they get to force them to wear them. So why should a Muslim women take hers off in case she offends an atheist?
Making everyone the same is not what equality tends to mean in this context - it is about everyone having equal rights to be an individual, not have the state ban expression of their beliefs to make them all appear the same.
What could be a simpler concept than people wearing what they want?
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2010, 14:13
People cannot infringe on others freedom just because they get offended... maybe Muslim men are offended when Christian women don't wear headscarves, doesn't mean they get to force them to wear them. So why should a Muslim women take hers off in case she offends an atheist?
Making everyone the same is not what equality tends to mean in this context - it is about everyone having equal rights to be an individual, not have the state ban expression of their beliefs to make them all appear the same.
What could be a simpler concept than people wearing what they want?
I suppose then it come down to the idea that we should be careful of allowing display's of religion as then someone has to set themselves up as an arbiter of what is right for various religions to display in this public sphere.
Basically who decides what them becomes acceptable as Louis showed with his picture what is the difference between a Sikh and his turban and a tribe of Amazonian Indians who put spikes through there cheek's why is one allowed in the police and the other not.
Far better to ban all displays and force people to engage in this stuff in private where it always should have been everywhere in the world.
Rhyfelwyr
02-15-2010, 16:06
Far better to ban all displays and force people to engage in this stuff in private where it always should have been everywhere in the world.
Surely that's a pretty authoritarian way of doing things?
Plus, if you force religious folk to hide away in the private sphere or their own communities, then that will only breed extremism amidst a mess of social and economic problems.
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2010, 16:17
Surely that's a pretty authoritarian way of doing things?
Plus, if you force religious folk to hide away in the private sphere or their own communities, then that will only breed extremism amidst a mess of social and economic problems.
Your still missing the point where is the line who decides whats right and what not far better to draw a harsh line for everyone in public while defending it to the death to its right to privacy away from the public sphere.
Rhyfelwyr
02-15-2010, 18:28
Your still missing the point where is the line who decides whats right and what not far better to draw a harsh line for everyone in public while defending it to the death to its right to privacy away from the public sphere.
Why not draw the line where the expression of religious belief directly affects the ability to do the job? There's no need for rigid rules, why not let the system sort itself out?
So if an employer hires a woman who wears a headscarf, that's up to him. If the shop then gets complaints beacuse people are offended by her headscarf, then let it be up to the employer if he fires her.
I still don't see the need for these state enforced regulations.
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2010, 19:05
Why not draw the line where the expression of religious belief directly affects the ability to do the job? There's no need for rigid rules, why not let the system sort itself out?
So if an employer hires a woman who wears a headscarf, that's up to him. If the shop then gets complaints beacuse people are offended by her headscarf, then let it be up to the employer if he fires her.
I still don't see the need for these state enforced regulations.
Because then were going to start getting into a relative weighting of ideas which is a very slippery slope.
Anyway to get back on topic the real danger to secular society is the tendency to slip into relativism. That relativism really is dangerous and when it does take over it can be devoured easily by fundamentalism of various kinds not just religous.
Rhyfelwyr
02-15-2010, 19:21
Because then were going to start getting into a relative weighting of ideas which is a very slippery slope.
But what need is there to weight ideas?
All I am saying is that there should be no state-enforced regulations regarding what people wear at work. Leave that up to the employer. If he feels that a woman wearing a headscarf is not appropriate for the work environment, he doesn't have to hire her. If he keeps a woman employed who loses him customers by offending them with her cross, wel then it's still his store, so it's his business.
I still don't see where the state needs to become involved at all in this.
And BTW, I am just as much against so called equality legislation that demands employers cater to the religious needs of their employees.
“But if you want to wear a cross at work, does that affect your ability to do the job? Or what sort of lame excuse will people come up with to justify banning crosses? That it offends them (lol)?” No, but it show a biais against them. They can refuse to be search by let’s say a Christian Police Officer who may have eat porc...
Or a Civil Servant refusing to unfold the law in marrying same sexe couple under his/her own interpretation of the religion…
“I don't understand how people can justify laicite from any sort of human rights/individual liberty perspective.” Well, easy to explain: Laicite is the only concept which doesn’t impose rules on somebody else. Laicite is not imposing it supremacy on others, but allowed all religions without hierachy to be followed.
In a laic state you are allowed to drink alcohol if you are a Muslim, even during Ramadan. But you are allowed to go to the Mosque if you want. You want to follow Careme you can…
Women are not stone to death if they have an affair, or burn alive if they believe in natural/herbal medecine.
It is freedom to do what you choose to do but without enfreeging others rights to do so.
Freedom to choose to live and to be responsible for what you decided to do. Freedom of choice, away from the ukaze of the moral orders. FReedom to be, to think different…
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2010, 19:33
My big fear is that namby pamby do-gooders who mistake attacking say Catholicism in Ireland insert your own major religon if English etc etc would end up giving Islamic fundamentalism a free ride.
I am a big believer in the pick one favour none idea but thats not what these Killiney living NIMBYites would force on you or me there obsessed with multiculturalism without any thought what it even means.
Secular society is indeed under threat and it is half and half between fundamentalists and relativists
Rhyfelwyr
02-15-2010, 20:03
No, but it show a biais against them. They can refuse to be search by let’s say a Christian Police Officer who may have eat porc...
Or a Civil Servant refusing to unfold the law in marrying same sexe couple under his/her own interpretation of the religion…
As I said, if it affects the ability to do their job, then the employer should have every right to reject them, and should never have to cater to their needs. I am firmly opposed to the PC-equality crap.
But why should the government tell an employer that he can't hire someone who will wear a headscarf? That's just unecessary.
Well, easy to explain: Laicite is the only concept which doesn’t impose rules on somebody else. Laicite is not imposing it supremacy on others, but allowed all religions without hierachy to be followed.
In a laic state you are allowed to drink alcohol if you are a Muslim, even during Ramadan. But you are allowed to go to the Mosque if you want. You want to follow Careme you can…
Women are not stone to death if they have an affair, or burn alive if they believe in natural/herbal medecine.
It is freedom to do what you choose to do but without enfreeging others rights to do so.
Freedom to choose to live and to be responsible for what you decided to do. Freedom of choice, away from the ukaze of the moral orders. FReedom to be, to think different…
Surely that is just a standard libertarian society? Laicite gives religion special treatment over all other ideologies/belief systems, apparently due to historical factors with the church being the oppressive force in past times. But really, where is the freedom in having to drop your religious belief as soon as you step over your doorstep?
This man can wear his religious symbols, disregarding the neutrality of the uniform:
https://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9814/asikhmetropolitanpolic0.jpg
This man can not wear his religious symbols in public, because his religious is not part of the ones receiving preferential treatment:
https://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1316/95364108.jpg
Nor can this man wear his beloved symbols - with utter disregard for the demands of neutrality of his uniform - because his symbols - however much important to him - are not religious, and hence not deemed worthy of special exempt status:
https://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6030/trekkie.jpg
This nets you one free internet. We demand secularist state and we demand it now. >:(
But why should the government tell an employer that he can't hire someone who will wear a headscarf? That's just unecessary.
The state is the employer. A policeman wouldn't be allowed to wear the hammer and the sickle, either; I suppose.
Louis VI the Fat
02-15-2010, 21:34
We demand secularist state and we demand it now. >:(French civilisation is universal. The future of all mankind, destined to be free and equal. It's not a nationality, but a mental state.
Or, as some would have it -woe upon them - simply the state of being mental.
There is progress. Last year, the UK abolished its blasphemy laws.
Blasphemy laws are lifted
Britain's ancient laws of blasphemy have been abolished by MPs.
By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Published: 12:27AM BST 10 May 2008
Comments 52 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942668/Blasphemy-laws-are-lifted.html#comments) | Comment on this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942668/Blasphemy-laws-are-lifted.html#postComment)
A campaign to repeal the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel, which made it illegal to insult Christianity, was proposed in January by the Liberal Democrat Evan Harris.
It was supported by public figures including the author Philip Pullman and the academic Richard Dawkins.
They claimed the little-used laws served no useful purpose, while allowing religious groups to try to censor artists.
Evangelists had tried to prosecute the director-general of the BBC over the controversial musical Jerry Springer – The Opera.
MPs voted to support the abolition of blasphemy in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
This has now received Royal Assent, condemning the laws to history.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942668/Blasphemy-laws-are-lifted.html
Not that it was a living law, but symbolism is important.
Next stop, the reserved seats for Bishops of the Church if England in the House of Lords.
Meneldil
02-15-2010, 21:51
As I said, if it affects the ability to do their job, then the employer should have every right to reject them, and should never have to cater to their needs. I am firmly opposed to the PC-equality crap.
But why should the government tell an employer that he can't hire someone who will wear a headscarf? That's just unecessary.
Surely that is just a standard libertarian society? Laicite gives religion special treatment over all other ideologies/belief systems, apparently due to historical factors with the church being the oppressive force in past times. But really, where is the freedom in having to drop your religious belief as soon as you step over your doorstep?
Wut? Man, private employers can let the workers wear headscarves and kippa. Public workers, on the other hand, don't get that right. They can't wear a headscarf, a kippa, a S&M mask or a "punk is not dead" jacket. That's about it.
Religion gets no special harsh treatement. It actually gets the exact same treatement as any other hobby or ideology. What you clearly don't get is that religious people deserves no treatement different from goth people, gay people, gamers. They aren't an oppressed minority. Thing is, unlike goth people, gay people or gamers, religious people tend to think they should have specific rights because they're catholic or muslim. They also tend to think that the state should accomodate to their beliefs. The French state disagrees.
Plus, if you force religious folk to hide away in the private sphere or their own communities, then that will only breed extremism amidst a mess of social and economic problems.
Well, thing is, the 1905 law we are talking about was designed in such a fashion that religious folks had two choices:
- join the civil, laic and modern society and become a part of the nation.
- persist in their ancient ways and become outcasts.
Obviously, the huge majority gave up the -already dying out- catholic religion and happily jumped into modernity. If muslims can't do the same, well, who cares? They can live in their hellholes and complain about the evil oppressive islamophobe french state, I'm not going to shed a single tear for them.
It is actually only practicable in a predominately Christian country, ironically.
Ironically, you're wrong. Turkey is an example of extremely secular muslim country. Women can't wear headscarves in the university in Turkey (while they sadly can in France).
That being said, in the 50's and 60's, many arab countries tried to establish secular society (more or less based on the french and turkish model). Pretty much all of them failed and made a U-turn during the 70's.
Louis VI the Fat
02-15-2010, 21:59
Obviously, the huge majority gave up the -already dying out- catholic religion and happily jumped into modernity. If muslims can't do the same, well, who cares? They can live in their hellholes and complain about the evil oppressive islamophobe french state, I'm not going to shed a single tear for them.http://www.tripadvisor.com/Flights-g293991-Saudi_Arabia-Cheap_Discount_Airfares.html
:book:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-15-2010, 23:16
Ironically, you're wrong. Turkey is an example of extremely secular muslim country. Women can't wear headscarves in the university in Turkey (while they sadly can in France).
That being said, in the 50's and 60's, many arab countries tried to establish secular society (more or less based on the french and turkish model). Pretty much all of them failed and made a U-turn during the 70's.
I addressed this, Turkey's Secularism rests on a knife edge, and Islam is still favoured. Also, Turkish Secularism is also linked to extreme nationalism, much more so than in France.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-15-2010, 23:35
French civilisation is universal. The future of all mankind, destined to be free and equal. It's not a nationality, but a mental state.
Or, as some would have it -woe upon them - simply the state of being mental.
There is progress. Last year, the UK abolished its blasphemy laws.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942668/Blasphemy-laws-are-lifted.html
Not that it was a living law, but symbolism is important.
Next stop, the reserved seats for Bishops of the Church if England in the House of Lords.
I had a love thought out post about George Orwell, 1984 and the Ministry of Love, but the internet ate it.
So I shall say simply that what you call Freedom I see only as oppression, and your vaunted Civilisation looks to me to be nothing more nor less than Roman, with Lacite replacing the Imperial Cult.
Next stop, the reserved seats for Bishops of the Church if England in the House of Lords.
Agreed. Let's board the train to freedom.
Rhyfelwyr
02-15-2010, 23:57
I have to admit, there's not really any valid reason for the House of Lords to still reserve seats for bishops.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-16-2010, 00:28
I have to admit, there's not really any valid reason for the House of Lords to still reserve seats for bishops.
Except that the Bishops are Officers of State and much more rigourously selected and vetted than the political dross that sit on those benches with them. As long as the Church remains an arm of the government; the Lords Spiritual should retain their seats.
The Wizard
02-16-2010, 00:32
Men in dresses with crosses have no place in any modern day legislature.
Except that the Bishops are Officers of State and much more rigourously selected and vetted than the political dross that sit on those benches with them. As long as the Church remains an arm of the government; the Lords Spiritual should retain their seats.
This is why we kick them all our, and their churches with them.
Also, I still remember when EMFM was adamant about Britain being an example of secularism. :beam: Where did he disappear to?
“So I shall say simply that what you call Freedom I see only as oppression”:
So freedom to choose to live the life you decide is to be oppressed.
You’re right: George Orwell wrote in 1984 the motto of all dictatureships, political and religious.: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strenght.
So for you, to have the choice is slavery, to have no guide, to have to built your own path, is oppression…
Well, as a former NCO I can tell you are somehow right. Most of the people prefer to obey than to take a decision, then fast to blame the man in charge in case of failure.
Freedom is hard. Better to have a good book to tell us what to do. We can stone to death young girls raped by their neighbours without any doubt…
Go to Holy War and you won’t see how much you are exploited at home.
Ignore the rest of the infidel world, you will have no doubt…
I would have had Ignorance is Freedom. When the Bible was in Latin, it was better as no body understood what it was said, so the control on the population by the men in charge of the link between the Creator and his/her creatures was more complete and absolute. Ignorance gives you freedom of mind which is essential. Too much questions just spoil the believers...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-16-2010, 01:34
This is why we kick them all our, and their churches with them.
Also, I still remember when EMFM was adamant about Britain being an example of secularism. :beam: Where did he disappear to?
The two have to happen together. As long as the Prime Minister chooses the Bishops they have as much right to sit in the Lords as any other Peer he chooses.
Louis VI the Fat
02-16-2010, 02:15
So I shall say simply that what you call Freedom I see only as oppressionWell one man´s freedom is another one´s oppression I guess.
Me, I don´t need this for an unelected senate, passing final judgement on the laws of my democratically elected government:
https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1131/bishopofwinchesterp61.jpg
Citizen vs subject and all that.
I wouldn't want an unelected head of state either. Nor my head of state to be the head of the state church. Nor a state church in the first place. Nor my head of state to appoint bishops.
Nor, indeed, my state to have any opinion about my religious persuasion whatsoever - that is none of its business.
Meneldil
02-16-2010, 19:50
I addressed this, Turkey's Secularism rests on a knife edge, and Islam is still favoured. Also, Turkish Secularism is also linked to extreme nationalism, much more so than in France.
That is sadly an effect of the rise of islamism since the 70's. It's quite sad that secularism couldn't establish itself in the middle east outside of Turkey and that it has to use militarism and fascism to maintain itself in Turkey.
As for the oppression you're talking about, I still don't see it. For your information, you can't wear headscarve in school and high school, and school is obligatory in France (there's no home teaching except for very specific cases). Young muslim take off their weil when they enter the school and put it back when they leave. If they feel oppressed, I don't know what to say.
Why should a muslim be allowed to wear a kippa while working for the city hall, while another person might not be able to wear a leather collar and a leash? Judaism and S&M are two hobbies that influence (or not) on your way of life. Why should one be favored over the other?
Now, as a very serious question, what is France, as a nation, as a society and as a state, missing with her laicité? None answered this question so far, while it is in my opinion the only important one. The oppression you're talking about is one of our last shield against multiculturalism (which have universally proved itself to be a failure), and probably one of the main reasons why France became the epitome of the modern nation-state (and the only complete and successful one according to some searchers whom I disagree with).
Edit: One of the thing you're also missing is the historical background of France since the Revolution. Namely, the state is going to liberate you, whether you like it or not, and whatever the cost might be. Obviously, it is only a national myth, but the way France dealt with religions since then is one of the main pillars of this myth.
For your information, you can't wear headscarve in school and high school[...]
Which is ridiculous, IMNSHO. Might as well enforce school uniforms while you're at it, so to not having students having to endure each other's personal styles, and the opinions contained therein. If it doesn't interfere with education, it should be allowed - general rule.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-16-2010, 23:42
Hmmmmm.
I believe in Freedom of Religion. Laicite appears to be Freedom from Religion....whether I like my religion or not. I thought laicite was supposed to insure secularity of civil government (a concept with much value) and not serve as a tool to eradicate/completely marginalize religion culturally.
As to the seating of Bishops in the House of Lords:
What difference does it make. As near as I can fathom it, the only remaining purpose of the HOL is to serve as a forum for discussion and for publicly stating the misgivings and caveats some persons/groups may have with a given piece of legislation, since the legislation itself is decided by the cabinet, rubber stamped by the governing party or coalition (save in rare votes or no confidence votes that force elections) in the HOC and stops at the HOL and the Queen's desk only for forms sake.
If that be so, what harm does letting a few bishops blather do?
The Wizard
02-16-2010, 23:53
They can delay legislation much like the U.S. Senate, though for a more limited time and with less options.
Rhyfelwyr
02-16-2010, 23:56
Which is ridiculous, IMNSHO. Might as well enforce school uniforms while you're at it, so to not having students having to endure each other's personal styles, and the opinions contained therein. If it doesn't interfere with education, it should be allowed - general rule.
Exactly. Just because a belief is influenced by the guy in the sky doesn't mean it needs to be suppressed unlike any other sort of belief.
Furunculus
02-17-2010, 00:02
Well one man´s freedom is another one´s oppression I guess.
Me, I don´t need this for an unelected senate, passing final judgement on the laws of my democratically elected government:
https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1131/bishopofwinchesterp61.jpg
Citizen vs subject and all that.
I wouldn't want an unelected head of state either. Nor my head of state to be the head of the state church. Nor a state church in the first place. Nor my head of state to appoint bishops.
Nor, indeed, my state to have any opinion about my religious persuasion whatsoever - that is none of its business.
i have always been happy to call myself a subject of her majesty, and i have no objection to the 'church' lords, even though i am not CoE, or even religious.
Louis VI the Fat
02-17-2010, 02:18
It is the dream of every Frenchman to find something, anything, to disagree about with another Frenchman, then start a civil war about it.
Yet for all the divisiveness, over anything, laïcité is not a source of disagreement. I think more Frenchmen believe in laïcité than in the existence of a country called 'Spain' south of the Pyrénées. The traditional opponents are extinct, or marginalised to such an extent that I want them protected as an endangered species. You'd sooner part an American from his Freedom of Speech, or five quid from a Scot, or a Texan from his cousine, than a Frenchman from his laïcité.
Wiki doesn't really seem to cut it. The BBC does have a very good introduction to this concept that is as central to French political sentiment as it is ill-understood and therefore much maligned abroad, or perfectly well understood and thus much maligned. However that may be:
French Secularism - Laicitehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/t.gifhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/pixel_grey.gifhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/t.gifhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/t.gif
Front Page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/)
What is h2g2? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/dontpanic-tour)
Who's Online (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/online?thissite=1)
Write an Entry (https://id.bbc.co.uk/users/login?target_resource=http%3A%2F%2Fidentity%2Fpolicies%2Fdna%2Fadult&ptrt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fdna%2Fh2g2%2FA2903663useredit)
Browse (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/Browse)
Announcements (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/Announcements)
Feedback (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/Feedback)
h2g2 Help (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/dontpanic)
RSS Feeds (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/feeds)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/t.gifhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/pixel_grey.gifhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/pixel_black.gifhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/t.gifContact Us (http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/)
Like this page?
Send it to a friend! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/navigation/mailto.pl?GO=1&REF=http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2903663)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/t.gifhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/skins/brunel/images/t.gifThe French concept of laïcité is often difficult to understand for foreigners, in part because the word itself is not easy to translate. As it signifies the strict separation of Church and State, the closest approximation in English is secularism. However, that does not fully convey the importance of laïcité in France.
At the end of 2003 and the beginning of 2004 the French newspapers seemed to talk about little else, due to the December 2003 report of the Stasi Commission (set up by Bernard Stasi to investigate the application of laïcité in France) and the resulting law of February 2004. This law, recommended by the commission, forbids school students to wear any conspicuous religious or political signs or symbols, such as the Islamic headscarf, the Jewish skullcap or large Christian crosses. The law is due to take effect at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year.
Such a measure was seen as extremely unusual and almost incomprehensible by many in other countries. However, in order to better understand the importance of secularism or laïcité in France (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A297083), it is necessary to trace the history of the relationship between the Church and the State, beginning at the time of the French Revolution.
A History of an Idea
Religion and Revolution
Although the idea of religious tolerance had been around since 1598, when the Edict of Nantes made it permissible for Protestant Christians to practise their religion, before 1789 the Roman Catholic Church (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A533828) was still a major part of the French system of government. Within the rigid social structure of the French Estates (known as the Ancien Régime), the clergy, or First Estate, wielded considerable power. Not only was the Church responsible for collecting the tithe from the ordinary workers and operating the hospitals and schools, it also had powers of censorship and owned around 15% of the land in France. The clergy can be seen as being divided into two groups. The lower clergy was made up of the parish priests and gained little from the power and wealth of the Church. However, the upper clergy, which consisted of the bishops and abbots, often used and abused their position to gain personal riches and property. These members of the Church, instead of serving the people, grew rich at their expense and were strongly resented by the French workers.
This was the situation until the Revolution of 1789, when the French people sought to overthrow not only the monarchy and its supporters, but also the whole social and political system, including the Roman Catholic Church. Although the Church survived the revolution, according to the ideology of the new republic it could no longer remain a separate estate with its own possessions. Therefore, the new government confiscated the land and assets belonging to the Church and auctioned them off to help resolve the financial problems that had led to the revolution. The state also attempted a huge restructuring of the Church hierarchy and demanded that the clergy swear allegiance to the French government ahead of the Church. Only 54% of priests complied with this request, but nevertheless, this attempt to bring the Catholic Church under state control can be seen as the beginning of the development of secularism in France.
Naturally the French government and the Vatican were at odds over the status of the Roman Catholic Church in France. This dispute was only resolved in 1801, when Napoleon Bonaparte signed a Concordat (http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/dna/h2g2/A2903663/ext/_auto/-/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04204a.htm) with the Pope, which officially brought the Catholic religion under state control. However, the document stated that so long as the Church confined its authority to religious affairs and kept within the rule of the law it would be allowed to run itself. Roman Catholicism was recognised as the faith of the majority of French citizens, but Napoleon also named Judaism and the Lutheran and Reformed Churches as being officially recognised by the state. Although these four 'official' religions received state funding and protection, none of them were given the status as the religion of the state. France had begun to view faith as a matter for each individual citizen rather than for a nation as a whole.
The Rights of Man
Another result of the French Revolution was the development of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/dna/h2g2/A2903663/ext/_auto/-/http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/declaration.html). This was a list of 17 rights to which every French citizen was entitled. The National Assembly believed that government corruption and public disaster always stemmed from the disregard of one of the essential human rights and so swore these principles would underpin all French laws and statutes from that time onwards.
Article 10 of the Declaration stated that: 'No-one should be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not upset the public order established by law.' This right of every French citizen to follow his or her own religion is the basis of the country's modern day principle of secularism. And although the word laïcité was not used in 1789, this is the first written evidence of the principle in French documents.
The 1905 Law
Despite this, it wasn't until 1905 that the principle of secularism in France was fully developed and set down as a law. This was mainly due to increased conflict between atheist government ministers and members of the Catholic Church who had been allowed to work in schools and hospitals. In 1880, Jules Ferry (an ancestor of the education minister who oversaw the 2004 law) sought to completely eliminate religious personnel from state-run schools as part of his education reforms. This was taken a step further by Emile Combes who, in 1902, closed the majority of religious schools and as Prime Minister was the behind the movement in favour of a law guaranteeing the independence of the state from religion.
Although Combes resigned in early 1905, the law was passed later that year. The law of 1905 enshrined a number of already-applied principles in law, but it also officially ended Napoleon's Concordat and imposed a number of new measures. The main terms of the law were:
No religion could be supported by the state, either by financial aid or political support.
Everyone had the right to follow a religion, but no-one had an obligation to do so.
Religious education at school was strictly forbidden.
No new religious symbols could be placed in public places, including graveyards.
A number of current French historians view this law as effectively a privatisation of religion, and it is clear that after passage of this law, religion was strictly the private business of each individual. However, the law continued to uphold the right of all citizens to follow their religion 'as much in public as in private'1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2903663#footnote1) so long as this did not disturb public order.
Challenges to Secularism in the 20th Century
Despite the 1941 repeal of the 1905 laws by the Vichy government, and the subsequent restoration of the majority of these laws by De Gaulle after the liberation of France, French secularism faced little challenge until the 1970s. Due to France's growing economy in the 1960s, the government turned to immigration as a solution to their labour shortage. They enticed workers from their former colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia to fill job vacancies, granting visas but not French citizenship to their families. These countries have strong Islamic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A952832) traditions, although those who chose to move to France were, on the whole, not strongly religious.
However, many of the children of these immigrant workers - French citizens who had lived in France all their lives - found it difficult to discover a place for themselves in society, and perhaps as part of their search for identity they turned to a more visible version of the religion of their parents. During the 1970s to the 1990s there were a number of cases of girls who were expelled from school because they insisted on wearing their headscarves in lessons. The headscarves seemed to concerned teachers to be compromising the other students' right to an education free from religious influences.
Although the numbers of students affected were relatively small, official figures from 2003 counted 1256 young women who wore the headscarf, 20 of whom were considered difficult cases and four of whom had been expelled. Clearly, not every case ended in expulsion; more often a compromise was reached between the individual girl and her school. Nevertheless, the situation became increasingly tense until July 2003 when the Stasi Commission was set up.
The Current Debate
The Stasi Commission
This Commission was led by Bernard Stasi and had the brief of examining the application of the principle of secularism in France, particularly in the light of tensions relating to the Islamic headscarf. After discussions with 120 selected French citizens of different opinions, religious beliefs and origins, the Commission published its report in December 2003.
The principle recommendation of the Commission was the establishment of a law forbidding students at any state school to wear any conspicuous religious or political sign. It also recommended the institution of public holidays to mark important dates in the Moslem and Jewish calendars in addition to the already-established Christian feast days, and the setting up of a specialist school dedicated to the study of the Islamic religion. However, all other recommendations were forgotten in the debate over banning religious signs in schools.
The Debate in France
The most fascinating thing about the debate in France was that both those who supported the law and those who opposed it did so in the name of laïcité. The concept is now such an integral part of the country's heritage that the dispute centred on whether a more modern and liberal form of secularism was needed in the new millennium. Essentially, the law had to strike a balance between two of the central principles of the French Republic: freedom and equality. Those in favour of banning all religious signs stated that at school everyone was a student first and that individual beliefs were secondary, whereas those against argued that equality was not the same thing as uniformity and that secularism should become more encompassing as the ethnic make-up of French society changed.
Those supporting a ban argued that the headscarf was a symbol of the repression of women, although the women themselves protested and argued that it was their choice, their right and their religion. Perhaps there was some truth in both opinions, but it seemed an irreconcilable disagreement. When it came to a vote, however, the more conservative interpretation of secularism won by a huge majority. Only 16 representatives voted against the law, as opposed to 494 who were in favour. According to the surveys at the time, this is broadly representative of the opinion of the French general public.
The 2004 Law – Continuing Uncertainty
The aim of the law was to clarify previous legislation on the subject and to give an obvious political backing to teachers in conflicts over headscarves and other religious symbols in schools. Unfortunately, even the leaflet published by the French government was unclear. Two different newspapers received completely different impressions regarding which symbols were to be banned and which were not. The biggest misunderstandings were over the bandana - often worn as an alternative to the headscarf, and over beards grown for religious reasons, these are difficult to regulate for obvious reasons.
An Ongoing Battle?
In the past France, more so than most other countries in the western world, had to fight to free itself from the authority of a Church whose political and social control was virtually complete. For a long time afterwards, the forces of religion were, sometimes unfairly, associated with monarchy and autocracy and were seen as an obstacle to modernisation and democracy. Secularism won that battle, and the French freed themselves from the control of the Roman Catholic Church.
However, because of past precedent it is very easy for the French to interpret any strong religious views as a direct threat to their freedom and way of life, even when this is not the intention. Such a visible symbol of religious belief as the Islamic headscarf is seen as intimidating, a view supported perhaps by the actions of fundamentalist terrorists in the wider world. It would seem disturbingly ironic if, as many journalists in other countries have suggested, the French government ends up helping the terrorists by leading youngsters to believe that their own country will not allow them to follow the rules of their faith.
The young women expelled from their schools because of their refusal to remove their headscarves argue that their freedom is being restricted – an argument that would strike a chord in the United States or Britain. However, in France, personal freedom, though important, comes second to preserving the strict neutrality of the state. In the western world, where controversial opinions and strong convictions often have the effect of making people feel slightly uncomfortable, France has stood by and even strengthened a century-old law. Cultural differences between the countries of the West may be declining in the main, but it seems those that remain create a wider gulf of opinion than ever before.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2903663
Edit: Oh, might as well throw in one especially for Brenus:
https://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5627/papesarkozyeglise.jpg
Louis VI the Fat
02-17-2010, 02:19
Hmmmmm.
I believe in Freedom of Religion. Laicite appears to be Freedom from Religion....whether I like my religion or not. I thought laicite was supposed to insure secularity of civil government (a concept with much value) and not serve as a tool to eradicate/completely marginalize religion culturally.I do struggle with this. I myself would not mind seeing all religion dissapear. (I think....)
I also do not want to rule over another man's conscience.
laïcité is not anti-religious, it is a-religious. It protects your religion against others, and others against ypour religion. It doesn't favour either one, either way.
In theory it doesn't. In practice, slight differences can have ever so different outcomes, especially given enough time. If I were put in a time machine, and send back to 1790, or 1800, or 1820, I would have put my money on two centuries later the US being 80% unreligious and France 80% religious.
The reverse happened.
Both countries are fiercely protective of their freedom of religion. Yet the small differences in how this freedom was put down in law had ever so different outcomes. On a quick thought, I think it is the diversity of religions in the US, from the start, that has preserved Christianity, whereas the prevalence of a single denomination had the opposite result in France. This had drastic results on how 'freedom of religion' was laid down in law.
Religious affiliation is determined by an urge to belong. People are (a)religious for social reasons, not theological ones. When there is little public reward for being (a)religious, it will lose its social attraction.
'One Nation under God', 'In God we Trust', 'May God Continue to Bless the United States of America' - these are powerful words. More powerful, (or perhaps just as powerful) as the people who sneaked them into the American public domain envisaged. They do, in the end, decide on the religiousity of a populace. So too does a separation of a public and private sphere for religion.
Each choice will create the social benefits of religion. Will set the reward, or absense thereof, for the public identity of 'God fearing' citizen: reflexive respect, or a shrug of the shoulders.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-17-2010, 06:06
"A-religious" is not an inherently bad idea for government. An agent of government shout have no say in my religious beliefs and should make no statements/take no actions as such an agent that fostered or harmed any particular religious belief. Yet, is it right to force such a person to discard aspects of their faith in pursuing secular neutrality in governance? Must a public agent cease to have a private self? I may be religious, and may hope to convert you to my faith by my quiet example and good works, but that is an aspect of my private self. Must such a modus vivendi be discarded upon entering a public life?
"A-religious" is not an inherently bad idea for government. An agent of government shout have no say in my religious beliefs and should make no statements/take no actions as such an agent that fostered or harmed any particular religious belief. Yet, is it right to force such a person to discard aspects of their faith in pursuing secular neutrality in governance? Must a public agent cease to have a private self? I may be religious, and may hope to convert you to my faith by my quiet example and good works, but that is an aspect of my private self. Must such a modus vivendi be discarded upon entering a public life?
Idealistically, yes. You choose between working for yourself, or working on the behalf of others. Having government working for themselves brings corruption and many of the problems we face today. Since we choose who goes into government and they, themselves choose to do so, they know full well what they are getting into, it isn't as if this is being forced onto people, it is more they volunteer for this to happen and to do it this way.
To add a quick comment, (not on the joke) to Louis VI Le Gros, Religion/religions in France is/are perceived as a tool of oppression (for historical reasons), not as a tool of freedom…
I, Frenchman, having (compulsorily) studied Voltaire, Diderot, Descartes, Du Belley (not Ronsard) and the Roman de Renart see religion as an enemy of free thinking, a tool of obscuratism…
To add a quick comment, (not on the joke) to Louis VI Le Gros, Religion/religions in France is/are perceived as a tool of oppression (for historical reasons), not as a tool of freedom…
I, Frenchman, having (compulsorily) studied Voltaire, Diderot, Descartes, Du Belley (not Ronsard) and the Roman de Renart see religion as an enemy of free thinking, a tool of obscuratism…
Me too.
Like those stories where the Catholic church tortured those who dared comment the Earth is round. The unspeakable things such as the Earth going around the Sun! There are many things which prove this, such as the catholic church saying condoms are a sin.
The Wizard
02-17-2010, 12:47
Actually, as a point of interest, may an American civil servant wear religious symbols to work?
Meneldil
02-17-2010, 14:25
Which is ridiculous, IMNSHO. Might as well enforce school uniforms while you're at it, so to not having students having to endure each other's personal styles, and the opinions contained therein. If it doesn't interfere with education, it should be allowed - general rule.
General rule defined by who exactly?
The headscarves (aswell as other religious symbols) were banned quite recently. Good thing. Twelve years old kids shouldn't have to wear religious symbols because they've been brainwashed by their parents. If the state is the only force that can help them, then so be it. Wearing a punk T-shirt or dressing like a rock star is not the same thing as wearing a veil. While the first two option carry no political meanings and are basically meant to look cool, people who wear headscarves into school do it because they've been brainwashed by their family or friends, or because they want to show that they're different from the rest of the (infidel and white) population.
Forcing them to take them off show that you can still be respected as a woman without hiding your hair, unlike what some nutjob told you.
General rule defined by who exactly?
The headscarves (aswell as other religious symbols) were banned quite recently. Good thing. Twelve years old kids shouldn't have to wear religious symbols because they've been brainwashed by their parents. If the state is the only force that can help them, then so be it. Wearing a punk T-shirt or dressing like a rock star is not the same thing as wearing a veil. While the first two option carry no political meanings and are basically meant to look cool, people who wear headscarves into school do it because they've been brainwashed by their family or friends, or because they want to show that they're different from the rest of the (infidel and white) population.
Forcing them to take them off show that you can still be respected as a woman without hiding your hair, unlike what some nutjob told you.
It should be a general rule that as long it doesn't interfere with education, it should be allowed. This really relative, but it is a good starting point.
"Brainwashing" kids is a responsibility of parents, and not one of the school. Obeying a dress code means that you've adapted to a norm - not some kind of universally "neutral" or "correct" standard.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-17-2010, 16:19
General rule defined by who exactly?
The headscarves (aswell as other religious symbols) were banned quite recently. Good thing. Twelve years old kids shouldn't have to wear religious symbols because they've been brainwashed by their parents. If the state is the only force that can help them, then so be it. Wearing a punk T-shirt or dressing like a rock star is not the same thing as wearing a veil. While the first two option carry no political meanings and are basically meant to look cool, people who wear headscarves into school do it because they've been brainwashed by their family or friends, or because they want to show that they're different from the rest of the (infidel and white) population.
Forcing them to take them off show that you can still be respected as a woman without hiding your hair, unlike what some nutjob told you.
This, I think, is the difference between the Roman State in France and the Germanic Nation in Britain, America, and most of North Western Europe.
In the one "The Republic" is an entity to be protected from individuals, so we have Laicite. In the other the people form a Nation which is to be protected from the oppression of the State, so we have Freedom of religion.
I believe that this is the real reason America and France turned out so differently; that and the distaste for an "elite" in Anglo-Saxon culture. If you look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they are profoundly Anglophone documents, enshrining the rights of a People and how they are to be protected from interference.
The Wizard
02-17-2010, 21:29
FYI the German state is far closer to France in the way it operates towards the populace it controls than the United States. Simply distilling it into "Germanic" vs. "Roman" as if this is the 19th century is taking a few shortcuts that end up with you hitting a brick wall.
gaelic cowboy
02-17-2010, 21:49
Well the German state would not have the same hang up about firing workers as the French would and they still have church taxes in germany so they are fairly differant views of how to govern
Louis VI the Fat
02-17-2010, 22:15
This, I think, is the difference between the Roman State in France and the Germanic Nation in Britain, America, and most of North Western Europe.
In the one "The Republic" is an entity to be protected from individuals, so we have Laicite. In the other the people form a Nation which is to be protected from the oppression of the State, so we have Freedom of religion.
I believe that this is the real reason America and France turned out so differently; that and the distaste for an "elite" in Anglo-Saxon culture. If you look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they are profoundly Anglophone documents, enshrining the rights of a People and how they are to be protected from interference.I beg to differ.
America's founding documents are a translation from French, not English. (With a generous helping of Locke, Anglosaxon free yeomanism, and puritanism (*which had to flee from Britain*). America has Montesquieu as much as Common Law.
Political concepts such as a state church, a monarch, this monarch as the guardian of the faith, the exclusion of peoples from the nation based on their religion, are completly alien to the US political framework, whereas they are the norm in Northern Europe.
The UK fought both the US and the French Revolution. Even as late as 1889, the British boycotted the opening of the Eiffel Tower, this centenary celebration of the perfidious and dangerous ideology of Rights of the People. The Americans by contrast came in droves and indulged themselves on a lavish helping of Republican wine, women and liberty, while the French dreamed of Buffalo Bill and the freedom of the West.
Political traditions in Britain, the Swiss Republic(s), the Dutch Republic, the Scandinavian lands, and the complicated traditions in the German lands, are vastly different. 'Germanic' or 'Roman' are 19th century concepts, not really fruitful for serious study.
Amidst all the teary-eyed celebrations of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US in recent years, a lot of history got forgotten. The US and the UK are vastly different countries. Each a great place as much as the other, to be sure. But vastly different.
Currently a lost art and a forgotten history, but for most of the past two centuries, between the trio of France, Britain and the US, resemblances could've been made between any two of them, any two of them depending on the perspective chosen more akin to each other than to the third.
Indeed, there have been long periods of time when both London and Washington felt closer to Paris than to each other. Never mind to Teutonic Prussia / Germany.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-18-2010, 00:13
I beg to differ.
I beg to differ in return.
America's founding documents are a translation from French, not English. (With a generous helping of Locke, Anglosaxon free yeomanism, and puritanism (*which had to flee from Britain*). America has Montesquieu as much as Common Law.
You said it yourself. The prime motivation for the Revolution was the suppression of the Yeomanry; you cannot possibly relegate this to second place. The revolution was Protestant, not Enlightened, and it was led and managed by the gentry just as the English Civil War was. In fact, the prime causes of the two are largely the same. Lack of parliamentary representation, abuse of taxation, and lack of religious freedom.
Political concepts such as a state church, a monarch, this monarch as the guardian of the faith, the exclusion of peoples from the nation based on their religion, are completly alien to the US political framework, whereas they are the norm in Northern Europe.
Did not some of the founding Colonies have State Churches, in fact? Was not religion written into both the declaration of independence and the Constitution?
The UK fought both the US and the French Revolution. Even as late as 1889, the British boycotted the opening of the Eiffel Tower, this centenary celebration of the perfidious and dangerous ideology of Rights of the People. The Americans by contrast came in droves and indulged themselves on a lavish helping of Republican wine, women and liberty, while the French dreamed of Buffalo Bill and the freedom of the West.
Well of course we reject Republics, we had one and it was an unmitigated disaster.
Political traditions in Britain, the Swiss Republic(s), the Dutch Republic, the Scandinavian lands, and the complicated traditions in the German lands, are vastly different. 'Germanic' or 'Roman' are 19th century concepts, not really fruitful for serious study.
This rather implies that the "Germanic Countries" are those whose people speak German; which is not what I meant. Nordic might be a better term. In any case; the practice of Common Law and the issuing of periodic Bill of Rights and Law Codes is Germanic in the sense that it is Anglo-Saxon prior to Norman contamination.
Constitutiuons and complete Penal Codes are Romantic.
Amidst all the teary-eyed celebrations of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US in recent years, a lot of history got forgotten. The US and the UK are vastly different countries. Each a great place as much as the other, to be sure. But vastly different.
Currently a lost art and a forgotten history, but for most of the past two centuries, between the trio of France, Britain and the US, resemblances could've been made between any two of them, any two of them depending on the perspective chosen more akin to each other than to the third.
Indeed, there have been long periods of time when both London and Washington felt closer to Paris than to each other. Never mind to Teutonic Prussia / Germany.[/QUOTE]
Rhyfelwyr
02-18-2010, 00:25
The provocateur strikes again!
America's founding documents are a translation from French, not English. (With a generous helping of Locke, Anglosaxon free yeomanism, and puritanism (*which had to flee from Britain*). America has Montesquieu as much as Common Law.
Well you say those things had to flee from Britain, yet at the end of the day their principles were esetablished by 1690. In any case, I would say Locke has much more influence than the Frenchmen of the time. Bah! They weren't true radicals, Montesquieu even supported a strong aristocracy - he still saw society divided in terms of what was a sort of class structure, with each keeping the other in check. This contrasts to Locke's ideas which are much more based on political equality for every individual.
Political concepts such as a state church, a monarch, this monarch as the guardian of the faith, the exclusion of peoples from the nation based on their religion, are completly alien to the US political framework, whereas they are the norm in Northern Europe.
In these matters, I would say that is simply because the US got a clean slate aften the revolution, whereas they were able to linger on in the more stable UK. But really, what thing in that list has caused a serious differentiation in the path British political values has taken? Yes, we have a monarch, but had established the principle of parliamentary sovereignty long before the US revolution. Yes, we have state churches, yet ever since 1689 there was freedom for non-conformists to establish a very strong network of schools, business, and their own general infrastrucutre. And what peoples have been excluded based on religion, that haven't had the same treatment in the USA? Both the US and UK are built on Protestant principles if you look at the context of the time, such as the ideas of contractarian government, a covenanted ruling power. So when Catholics threatened that, there was a great outcry in the US, just as surely as anti-Catholicism was rife in Britain.
The UK fought both the US and the French Revolution.
And yet, why were the Americans revolting in the first place? The mid-eighteenth century saw the Anglicisation of what had previously been a more diverse American people, and the WASP principle really became a reality. When the Americans revolted, they demanded their rights as Englishmen. They appealed to the ancient anglo-saxon constitution, which demands representation with taxation - something they were denied with their colonial status. The fact that the UK fought the revolution is due to the paradox of a state founded upon anglo-saxon/Protestant principles, which at the same time was influenced in the previous century by a more continental style absolutist papist monarchy, and so at the same time had the mentality to become an imperial power.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-18-2010, 01:58
I beg to differ.
America's founding documents are a translation from French, not English. (With a generous helping of Locke, Anglosaxon free yeomanism, and puritanism (*which had to flee from Britain*). America has Montesquieu as much as Common Law.
Well, Jefferson is known to have referenced Montesquieu a good deal, but the other founders were more Locke with a dash of Rousseau.
Political concepts such as a state church, a monarch, this monarch as the guardian of the faith, the exclusion of peoples from the nation based on their religion, are completly alien to the US political framework, whereas they are the norm in Northern Europe.
While there was no formal exclusion of non-protestants, all of the Jewish and Catholic immigrant groups faced decades of discrimination. The other aspects you note are, as you are aware, specifically proscribed by our constitution.
Louis VI the Fat
02-18-2010, 20:12
Philip, Rhy - those are all good points. You shall have to forgive me for not going over each one of them.
The provocateur strikes again!And thereby we manage to have a debate. What's more, a religion topic that discusses Locke and Voltaire, 1905 and 1688, instead of 'muslims are evil and Christians are stupid'.
For which my thanks to all contributors. :balloon2:
Seamus Fermanagh][/B]
While there was no formal exclusion of non-protestants, all of the Jewish and Catholic immigrant groups faced decades of discrimination.Discrimination is one thing. Policy is another.
Tony Blair:
"One of the funny things about the Yes Prime Minister show is that, if you have actually done the job, you realise there is parody but, my goodness, it is parody close to truth," said the former PM.
"And one of the great Sir Humphrey moments was when the Ambassadorship to the Holy See became vacant.
"I said 'Well, Francis would be a great person to do that'. And they said 'Well, you know this, Prime Minister, but actually we don't really have this open to Catholics'.
"I honestly thought I misunderstood what they were saying."
Mr Blair added: "I said 'It's the Vatican. The Pope, he's a Catholic. You mean we actually as a matter of policy... say you can't have a Catholic... It's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard'."
That's right. The post of 'English/British Ambassador to the Holy See' was not open to Catholics until 2005.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100215...y-f858358.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100215/tuk-the-catholic-ambassador-controversy-f858358.html)
Mind, that of all the European countries without a clear separation of church and state (i.e., all of them minus France and Turkey), the UK has been amongst the most enlightened. (Despite sectarianism and racial anti-Irish resentment).
For one, unlike most of Western Europe, 'Christian Democrat' is not the largest political force.
“that and the distaste for an "elite" in Anglo-Saxon culture” Err, where do we have a Chamber of Commom (for commonors) and a Chamber of the Lords (for owners)?
“When the Americans revolted, they demanded their rights as Englishmen.” Irrelevant. When the French started the Revolution in 1789 they started it as loyal subjects of His Majesty Louis the XVI who was surrounded by bad consellors…
“Lack of parliamentary representation, abuse of taxation, and lack of religious freedom.” Were the reasons why the 1789 French Revolution ignitated.
Jews in ghettos, Protestantism erradicated and illegal by the main Religious stream, all was in the mind when the Universal Human Right Declaration was written.
Laicite is the only way to protect smaller religions agianst big religions. Laicite is the only tool to protect Religion against Religion own temptation… And the only way to protect the non-believers…
Furunculus
02-19-2010, 09:39
Laicite is the only way to protect smaller religions agianst big religions. Laicite is the only tool to protect Religion against Religion own temptation… And the only way to protect the non-believers in France
there, corrected it for you. :p
Louis VI the Fat
03-03-2010, 14:39
Two Italians, a football player and a coach, have been suspended by the Italian Football Association for using blasphemous language.
MILANO, 2 marzo - L’allenatore del Chievo Domenico Di Carlo ottiene il poco invidiabile record di essere il primo allenatore della storia del calcio italiano a essere squalificato per una bestemmia. Di Carlo è stato pizzicato dagli uomini della Procura federale presenti al Bentegodi durante il match con il Cagliari, che poi hanno inviato il referto al giudice sportivo Tosel.
In serie B, invece, si registra il primo caso di prova tv per bestemmia. Il labiale incriminato è stato quello di Scurto della Triestina, perché il giocatore, «dolorante al suolo dopo avere subìto un fallo, proferiva un'espressione blasfema (la lettura del labiale esclude ogni ragionevole incertezza)». Sempre per blasfemia squalificato Sicingnao del Frosinone. Ma in questo caso non c'è stato bisogno della prova televisiva: a sentirlo è stato un collaboratore della Procura federale.
http://www.tuttosport.com/calcio/serie_a/2010/03/02-58271/Bestemmie:+in+A+squalificati+Di+Carlo+e+LanzafameItaly is losing the fight. The Italian state which from unification sought to free itself from the papacy, is turning into a Greater Papal State. :wall:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-04-2010, 00:24
“that and the distaste for an "elite" in Anglo-Saxon culture” Err, where do we have a Chamber of Commom (for commonors) and a Chamber of the Lords (for owners)?
The House of Lords dates from a time when the monarchy regularly entitled up and comers, and served well in this function until the last century. In any case, Britain has never had a "Nobility", only Noble titles given to individuals; unlike France which ennobled families.
Further, the heritory system, including the abolition of the elected monarchy, was a Norman inposition on an Anglo-Saxon people. So my point stands on all fronts; Anglo-Saxons have a distate for an elite class.
“When the Americans revolted, they demanded their rights as Englishmen.” Irrelevant. When the French started the Revolution in 1789 they started it as loyal subjects of His Majesty Louis the XVI who was surrounded by bad consellors…
Which is not the same.
“Lack of parliamentary representation, abuse of taxation, and lack of religious freedom.” Were the reasons why the 1789 French Revolution ignitated.
Jews in ghettos, Protestantism erradicated and illegal by the main Religious stream, all was in the mind when the Universal Human Right Declaration was written.
Laicite is the only way to protect smaller religions agianst big religions. Laicite is the only tool to protect Religion against Religion own temptation… And the only way to protect the non-believers…
Funny, I thought the riots started in Paris because the peasants lacked food. As opposed to Parliament declaring War on the King because he invaded the House.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2010, 04:43
I want my government completely secular because I don't want no pope telling my president what to do. If my president isn't taking his spiritual decisions from the correct interpretations of Pat Robertson, then our country is threatened to no longer be blessed by god.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-04-2010, 05:34
Not even a well-thought-out troll. You should be ashamed.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2010, 06:01
Not even a well-thought-out troll. You should be ashamed.
The one before this last one was much better. I have my good days and my bad days. I'm still rusty after being banned for a couple weeks.
Louis VI the Fat
03-05-2010, 01:20
There will be no alms, no miracles, so there must be art.
For some reason which I find diffucult to explain, not in the least since encounter two (below) makes me doubt whether my thoughts about this blog are profound or trivial, this blog entry seemed very fitting to this thread. The secular society, for better or for worse:
http://urbanist.typepad.com/creature_of_the_shade/2009/10/paris-four-encounters.html
“Funny, I thought the riots started in Paris because the peasants lacked food. As opposed to Parliament declaring War on the King because he invaded the House.”. Yes, a common mis-knowledge.
In 1789, the famine was over. The riots went because the speculation on food.
Some traders decided to stockpile the wheat to artificially increase the price in creating a shortage of bread.
The riots for food were not aimed at the King.
The Revolution started as a political movement… Nobility reactionaries started it , then lost control, outmaneuvered by the Tiers Etats, Louis the XVI refusing to understand the situation, always reacting in the wrong direction, etc… Too early to go in details, but to summarize, the French Revolution was not for food…
By the way, peasants and Paris don’t go together even in the 18th century, that should have been a hint…
“In any case, Britain has never had a "Nobility"” No? So every time you elected your King/Queen. In the Chamber of the Lords you have the ones who inherited the title…
“Further, the hereditary system, including the abolition of the elected monarchy, was a Norman imposition on an Anglo-Saxon people. So my point stands on all fronts; Anglo-Saxons have a distaste for an elite class.”
Absolutely not:
The Franks were “electing” their King, in raising the winner on a shield.
Do you think that the 18th Century England was “Anglo-Saxon”…
My dear, a English King started a 100 years war long before because he rightly believed he should be the French King by his mother…
The Anglo-Saxons have so much a distaste for am elite class, why do we have a Baroness Thatcher, Dame and Sir, etc…
Meneldil
03-05-2010, 11:33
This, I think, is the difference between the Roman State in France and the Germanic Nation in Britain, America, and most of North Western Europe.
In the one "The Republic" is an entity to be protected from individuals, so we have Laicite. In the other the people form a Nation which is to be protected from the oppression of the State, so we have Freedom of religion.
I believe that this is the real reason America and France turned out so differently; that and the distaste for an "elite" in Anglo-Saxon culture. If you look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they are profoundly Anglophone documents, enshrining the rights of a People and how they are to be protected from interference.
As pointed out by a few people, the "Latin" (or "Roman") vs. "Germanic" distinction is quite out of fashion by now. It's not used anymore by historians or lawyers. If anything, France would have been a mix of both, rather than only one or the other.
That being said, read the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789 (which is included in the current constitution). Freedom of religion is mentioned with freedom of opinion in articles 10 and 11.
Furthermore, the DoHR of 1789 is an answer to the arbitrary powers of the King. It explicitely states that citizens have a right "to resist oppression". That kind of doesn't cut it with your whole "the Republic is a totalitarian autority" idea.
That is also forgetting the fact that several of the most important french modern political figures became important players by disagreeing with the State (ie. all revolutionaries, from Mirabeau to Robespierre, Napoléon, De Gaulle).
It is also funny that you mention the term nation when it comes to Britain and America, and not when it comes to France. For a frenchman, the US isn't a nation, but a group of people who barely speak the same language and just ended up on the same territory to make as much money as possible.
"Brainwashing" kids is a responsibility of parents, and not one of the school. Obeying a dress code means that you've adapted to a norm - not some kind of universally "neutral" or "correct" standard.
Well, I think school has a crucial responsability regarding intellectual emancipation and well being. School is the first place where you supposedly learn how to become a citizen and how to live with others. It is also where you learn about yours and other people's religions. Religious symbols used to yell "I'M BETTER THAN YOU, SEE?" in the face of your classmate has no place there. That's without even taking into account that kids shouldn't have to bear religious symbols or adopt an ideology because their family told them to. That is a ridiculous idea and the simple fact that you think it's alright that 13 year old girls weir veils (or a cross for that matter) puzzles me.
Freedom isn't about doing whatever the hell comes to your mind. Freedom is about being an enlightened and rational being.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2010, 12:13
Benus, I was making a point about the Anglo-Saxon physche, not an historical one. It is a matter of English identity that our Kings were chosen by the Whitan until the arrival of the Norman French.
Ergo, the English national identity opposes Frankish and Latin constitutional arrangements as a matter of principle.
That was new information for me, about the riots, thank you.
Melendil, I think we are suffering from a language barrier. "Freedom" is to be unrestrained by an external force. This is why both the English Magna Carta, our Later Bill of Rights and the American Bill of Rights are framed primarily in negative statements. Rights which shall not be infringed.
It has nothing to do with being an "enlightened and rational" being. You can be pig ignorant and still free, that's a literary trope even. Freedom through ignorance.
Louis VI the Fat
03-05-2010, 14:45
Benus, I was making a point about the Anglo-Saxon physche, not an historical one. It is a matter of English identity that our Kings were chosen by the Whitan until the arrival of the Norman French.
Ergo, the English national identity opposes Frankish and Latin constitutional arrangements as a matter of principle.
That was new information for me, about the riots, thank you.
Melendil, I think we are suffering from a language barrier. "Freedom" is to be unrestrained by an external force. This is why both the English Magna Carta, our Later Bill of Rights and the American Bill of Rights are framed primarily in negative statements. Rights which shall not be infringed.
It has nothing to do with being an "enlightened and rational" being. You can be pig ignorant and still free, that's a literary trope even. Freedom through ignorance. Magna Carta is a Latin document written by Frenchmen to protect French feudalism from arbitrary monarchical power wielded by French speaking monarchs.
It came about after Norman-England suffered traditional defeat in France, and the Scottish and French subsequently invaded London, leaving the Norman king of England the need to affirm French feudal rights for his Anglo-French barons to secure taxes.
Little to do with innate 'Anglosaxon' freedom. :balloon2:
Well, I think school has a crucial responsability regarding intellectual emancipation and well being. School is the first place where you supposedly learn how to become a citizen and how to live with others. It is also where you learn about yours and other people's religions.
Absolutely.
Religious symbols used to yell "I'M BETTER THAN YOU, SEE?" in the face of your classmate has no place there.
I fail to see how [religious] symbols equal yelling and arrogance.
That's without even taking into account that kids shouldn't have to bear religious symbols or adopt an ideology because their family told them to. That is a ridiculous idea and the simple fact that you think it's alright that 13 year old girls weir veils (or a cross for that matter) puzzles me.
I don't think people being forced is cool; thus I do oppose a ban. Force is not a requirement for the usage of these symbols. The word school is also, as I am used to it, relevant for people as old as 18.
Freedom is about being an enlightened and rational being.
In my vocabulary, freedom is more about being able to choose. Perhaps it is easier to choose according to own desire if you know more; but what this has got to do with religious symbols, I've got no clue.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2010, 19:26
Magna Carta is a Latin document written by Frenchmen to protect French feudalism from arbitrary monarchical power wielded by French speaking monarchs.
It came about after Norman-England suffered traditional defeat in France, and the Scottish and French subsequently invaded London, leaving the Norman king of England the need to affirm French feudal rights for his Anglo-French barons to secure taxes.
Little to do with innate 'Anglosaxon' freedom. :balloon2:
By 1215 most of the Barons were part Anglo-Saxon, they had Anglo-Saxon grandmothers in the majority of cases. On the Episcopal Bench the situation was still worse, while the Reeves and secular clergy were overwhelming English.
One of the things the Charter protects is the rights of "Freemen".
So, while I taqke your point you are grosely oversiplifying things. In any case; your arguement is defunct with relation to the other documents I listed.
Strike For The South
03-05-2010, 20:10
I am an American
I admire France
Therefore Americans admire France
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2010, 20:46
I am an American
I admire France
Therefore Americans admire France
I thought you were Texan?
Louis VI the Fat
03-05-2010, 20:51
By 1215 most of the Barons were part Anglo-Saxon, they had Anglo-Saxon grandmothers in the majority of cases. On the Episcopal Bench the situation was still worse, while the Reeves and secular clergy were overwhelming English.
One of the things the Charter protects is the rights of "Freemen".
So, while I taqke your point you are grosely oversiplifying things. In any case; your arguement is defunct with relation to the other documents I listed.I shall immediately plead guilty to oversimplification. :beam:
One needs to make his point, eh?
All countries think they invented freedom. That their history is unique, that they invented modern day freedom.
The Greeks think classical Athens invented it. The Italians point to their city states. The North European trading towns see it in their Charters. The Swiss think freedom is a result of 1291. The Americans think freedom is an American phenomenon. England thinks it invented a unique freedom by itself, in isolation. The French think that 'In 1789, We said "Let there be light', and there was light. We saw how good the light was, and separated enlightenment from darkness. The darkness We called "ancient." Morning followed, this We called day one. Pimidi, 1 Vendémiaire, an I"
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2010, 21:08
I shall immediately plead guilty to oversimplification. :beam:
One needs to make his point, eh?
All countries think they invented freedom. That their history is unique, that they invented modern day freedom.
The Greeks think classical Athens invented it. The Italians point to their city states. The North European trading towns see it in their Charters. The Swiss think freedom is a result of 1291. The Americans think freedom is an American phenomenon. England thinks it invented a unique freedom by itself, in isolation. The French think that 'In 1789, We said "Let there be light', and there was light. We saw how good the light was, and separated enlightenment from darkness. The darkness We called "ancient." Morning followed, this We called day one. Pimidi, 1 Vendémiaire, an I"
I agree, but my point was that "freedom" can mean different things in different places and at different times. It is clear that Melendil and I have diometrically opposed concepts of what it means to be "free" and the best way for me to express this is to refer to the "unfashionable" distinction between the Roman and Germanic.
It might be worth considering that the abandonment of the distinction is due to the percieved need to create a "Common European Identity", and what we see here is evidence it has thus far failed.
Strike For The South
03-05-2010, 21:40
I thought you were Texan?
Are you a brit or an englishman?
Louis VI the Fat
03-05-2010, 22:37
I agree, but my point was that "freedom" can mean different things in different places and at different times. It is clear that Melendil and I have diometrically opposed concepts of what it means to be "free" and the best way for me to express this is to refer to the "unfashionable" distinction between the Roman and Germanic.
It might be worth considering that the abandonment of the distinction is due to the percieved need to create a "Common European Identity", and what we see here is evidence it has thus far failed. Meneldil isn't describing freedom in a Roman sense. The distinction belongs to outdated, 19th century concepts of race, and to English national discourse.
Building a Common European Identity has got nothing to do with it.
For example, a distinction between Germanic and Roman loses much of its worth in France, whose political and legal traditions are a synthesis of the two. The French Civil code is Germanic Common Law codified in a Roman legal system. Magna Carta is Germanic feudal law, written in Latin by Frenchmen for Anglo-Normans. Italy has German law, Germany Italian law. Etcetera.
Western Europe IS the marriage of the North and the South. :beam:
More specifically, British identity thinks of Britain as singular. Then points to such 'uniquely Anglosaxon' concepts as 'Habeas Corpus'. (Blissfully overlooking that the very term is Latin. While the Latin simply reflects the written practise of the day, it still goes some way to showing that England did not grow exclusively out of insular, nor Germanic, roots)
More importantly, the concept of Habeas corpus is not unique to Anglosaxon or Common Law freedom at all. It is codified in all European legal systems, and has been present since classical Roman Law. (De homine libero exhibendo)
I realise I shall never be able to convince any Briton of this, for whom the thought of Habeas corpus as uniquely Anglosaxon is a mythical, untouchable cornerstone of Anglosaxon identity on which entire philosophies of the nature of Anglosaxon freedom have been build. :wink:
gaelic cowboy
03-05-2010, 22:57
And yet those lovely people from Sasana love to suspend all there freedoms at a moments notice all through there history
Habeus Corpus Suspended (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Suspension_Act_1745)
and then there is this old chestnut we Irish never stop on about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_%28Ireland%29)
Louis VI the Fat
03-05-2010, 23:14
And yet those lovely people from Sasana love to suspend all there freedoms at a moments notice all through there history
Habeus Corpus Suspended (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Suspension_Act_1745)
and then there is this old chestnut we Irish never stop on about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_%28Ireland%29)Hah!
Another nugget: one of the first British reactions to the French Revolution was to abolish Habeas corpus in Britain. To halt seditious Brits from demanding civil rights and universal suffrage too. Can't have that, Britons organising themselves and demanding continental rights and freedoms.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/british/c_habeus.html
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
It's funny how in Ireland and Poland Catholicism had come to embody national freedom, and in some other places the enemy of it.
gaelic cowboy
03-05-2010, 23:30
It's funny how in Ireland and Poland Catholicism had come to embody national freedom, and in some other places the enemy of it.
[/CENTER]
I find it truly hilarious really sometimes it just shows the old saying about "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." from a major work of western fiction I believe that quote. If instead of trying to force conversion they had tried to win converts things might have turned out very differant not just in Britain and Ireland but even events in the wider world.
Rhyfelwyr
03-06-2010, 00:31
The embodiment of freedom is the hillybilly with his KJV in one hand, and a shotgun in the other. Defending his God-given liberties with the former, and chasing the tax-collecter off his land with the latter.
I don't understand these contintentals that push this notion of a number of state granted privileges as being 'freedom'. Freedom from ignorance through a state education system. Freedom from poverty through state welfare. Freedom from ill-health through state health care. What next... freedom from undue exertion through state officials wiping yer own arse for ye?
The same arguments used to defend this continental notion of freedom, if taken to their natural conclusions, would justify those dystopian totalitarian states which sprung up in fiction in the early-mid 20th century. Nobody should have to be sad, that's not freedom. Maybe if the government regulates every aspect of their lives they will be happier...
Tellos Athenaios
03-06-2010, 03:01
The codifying-is-the-thing-to-do notion is there precisely *because* the continent has seen its share of authoritarian regimes and has perceived them to be that way. Therefore when the inevitable re-calibration of the social and political hierarchies occurred it followed that there should be documents codifying what was at the discretion of the current regime and what was not.
And to give it an ironic twist. Consider a hypothetical scenario under traditional common law: You could only hope that your particular religion or lack thereof would be tolerated by the local authorities. If not too bad but hey it would not be like you actually _had_ any freedom of religion in the first place -- the way you, yourself perceived the law to be is not the same as the way the law is interpreted by society at large. Because that is what common law is: the (local) interpretation of (local) customs, enforced by (local) authorities. IOW: subject to change without notice.
Louis VI the Fat
03-06-2010, 04:26
Is Ratzinger getting nervous yet? First Germany. Then his diocese. Now his brother.
Will the accusations hit the very heart of the church? Will there be allegations of...the unthinkable?
Sexual abuse accusations at Pope's brother's choir Germany's Roman Catholic Church has revealed charges of priests beating and sexually abusing boys in at least three schools in Pope Benedict's native Bavaria, one linked to a renowned choir once led by his brother.
Reverend Georg Ratzinger, 86, who led the choir from 1964 to 1994, told Bavarian Radio he knew nothing of any abuse at the choir, which regularly performs on tours in Germany and abroad.
The charges at the cathedral choir in Regensburg, the Benedictine monastery school at Ettal and a Capucian school in Burghausen came to light after abuse cases revealed at Jesuit schools around the country shocked the country last month.
The diocese of Regensburg, where the pope taught theology at the university from 1969 to 1977, said there were no current abuse cases and it would investigate all charges from the past.
"We want to fully answer the question about which abuse cases happened in Regensburg diocese.
"Who were the perpetrators and who were the victims?" said diocesan spokesman Clemens Neck.
The diocese said in a statement that one priest had abused two boys sexually in 1958 and was sentenced to two years in jail.
Another clergyman served 11 months in jail in 1971 for abuse. Both men have since died.
It said three men claimed to have suffered sexual abuse as well as beatings and humiliation in the early 1960s while at boarding schools connected to the choir.
The diocese was investigating these cases and more could be revealed, it said.
In Ettal in southern Bavaria, a lawyer investigating charges of abuse in a Benedictine monastery school said hundreds of boys had been beaten and some sexually abused decades ago.
Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, head of the German Bishops Conference, apologised last month for sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests after over 100 such cases were reported in elite Jesuit boarding schools around the country.
Sexual abuse scandals, which haunted the Church in the United States over the last decade and bankrupt several dioceses, have rocked Ireland after two blunt government reports in recent months and come to light in the Netherlands this week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/7380535/Sexual-abuse-accusations-at-Popes-brothers-choir.html
But it is not just Scientology and Catholicism who have come under intense scrutiny for abuse in recent years. Hinduism is currently under siege for its endemic abuses by holy men as well:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7369404/Hindu-swami-caught-in-compromising-position-on-TV.html (http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/600/)
“I was making a point about the Anglo-Saxon psyche”: Yes. History is a representation of a Nation/State of herself.
English nowadays want to represent themselves as different of the continentals/barbarians –even more if French- as possible. Even when a reality of historical facts or vocabulary (as Louis pointed out wit the very Latin Habeas Corpus) show they are not, they stick to this.
The English are not alone in this kind of attitude, as all populations/individuals tend to do so, even in term of private life… Always amaze me when during family gathering my recollection of common events doesn’t match the one from my brothers and sisters, or my mother when she was still in this life…
“That was new information for me, about the riots, thank you.” The French Revolution, as all political movements is the conjunction of forces which taken separately wouldn’t kill a regime. But massive debts, bad management, hate campaign against the Monarchy (bad PR), political mistakes combined put to French Absolute Monarchy in disarray. As I said, the French didn’t start a revolution. They made a Revolution.
They started to respectfully present to the King their doléances, their requests and observations nicely collected and written on books (cahiers de doléances) hoping the good King Louis will open his eyes and kick his bad counselors out and restore Justice and Good Governance in his Kingdom.
They end in cutting his neck.
It was plenty of room for negotiation; Louis XVI Capet missed all of them.
“if taken to their natural conclusions” Would you mind to develop, as would have say my teachers, I am quite puzzle by this…
Do you mean that the natural conclusions of the Enlightenment (Voltaire, Pascal, Rousseau, Diderot, Lavoisier, Dalembert and the first Encyclopedia) are Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin?
Because for me, they are Victor Hugo, Jaures, Blum, Brian, Jules Ferry, Jean Moulin, Pierre Bosselette, right of votes, abolition of slavery, the end of the children work, freedom and education for all, freedom from religions, access to education for the poorest, etc…
Kralizec
03-07-2010, 19:45
It might be worth considering that the abandonment of the distinction is due to the percieved need to create a "Common European Identity", and what we see here is evidence it has thus far failed.
Nonsense. Even worse, it smells of conspiracy theories.
The abandonment of the distinction is because the distinction is frivolous. I made a post about negative/positive liberty a while ago but I can't remember where...
"Freedom" is to be unrestrained by an external force.
The Anglo-Saxon notion of freedom is about not being restrained by the government, and was conceived by well-off English landowners such as Locke who didn't have an interest in the government doing anything else besides enforcing contracts and fending off foreign enemies. While I don't wish to slam Locke, the singular emphasis on freedom against government is grossly outdated. People who talk high praise about this particular interpretation of "freedom" but are okay with publicly funded education for poor kids and whatnot are bloody hypocrites.
Louis VI the Fat
03-11-2010, 18:34
https://img52.imageshack.us/img52/3994/jesusa.jpg
What does everybody think of this painting?
(No strings attached, no political meaning with the question, just curious but don't want to open a thread about it)
ajaxfetish
03-11-2010, 18:51
It doesn't move me. There have been some great depictions of deity and some poor ones. I presume this is supposed to be Jesus, but I don't feel any sense of majesty, pain, compassion, or for that matter any reaction beyond meh. I think it's one of the more egregious Europeanizations of him I've seen, too. Not just light skin, but blonde hair. He looks more like a California surfer or pop musician than a Jewish teacher. The pallette is unimaginative, the layout is less than interesting, there's neither an impressive realism nor a thought-provoking impressionism to the work. Overall, I'd think of it as B-grade church art. There's nothing necessarily bad about it, but it doesn't have any merit that I can see.
Ajax
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2010, 18:52
Nonsense. Even worse, it smells of conspiracy theories.
The abandonment of the distinction is because the distinction is frivolous. I made a post about negative/positive liberty a while ago but I can't remember where...
The Anglo-Saxon notion of freedom is about not being restrained by the government, and was conceived by well-off English landowners such as Locke who didn't have an interest in the government doing anything else besides enforcing contracts and fending off foreign enemies. While I don't wish to slam Locke, the singular emphasis on freedom against government is grossly outdated. People who talk high praise about this particular interpretation of "freedom" but are okay with publicly funded education for poor kids and whatnot are bloody hypocrites.
This is patently incorrecect, "Free-dom" means to be unfettered, litterally unbound. A Freeman, or Ceorl was one who could transfer his loyalty between Lords, later it came to mean those who were not Serfs. To suggest that the Anglo-Saxon conception of Freedom is a modern construct is clearly false, therefore.
As to a "conspiracy theory", I suggest no such thing. Rather, I believe that the horror the Second World War created a collective motivation for Europeans to abandon their sense of individuality and and instead make a point of their commonalities. This is what the EU is all about, after all. Read any of the literature, especially school literature, and it will trumpet the fact that the EU makes the member states so integrated that War is nor impossible.
This is a frivilous claim, but it's a nice idea. There's nothing sinister about the desire to avoid war.
HoreTore
03-11-2010, 18:54
https://img52.imageshack.us/img52/3994/jesusa.jpg
What does everybody think of this painting?
(No strings attached, no political meaning with the question, just curious but don't want to open a thread about it)
A guy dressed in blue being emo with some weird sky in the background?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2010, 18:56
It doesn't move me. There have been some great depictions of deity and some poor ones. I presume this is supposed to be Jesus, but I don't feel any sense of majesty, pain, compassion, or for that matter any reaction beyond meh. I think it's one of the more egregious Europeanizations of him I've seen, too. Not just light skin, but blonde hair. He looks more like a California surfer or pop musician than a Jewish teacher. The pallette is unimaginative, the layout is less than interesting, there's neither an impressive realism nor a thought-provoking impressionism to the work. Overall, I'd think of it as B-grade church art. There's nothing necessarily bad about it, but it doesn't have any merit that I can see.
Ajax
You're being too kind. It's utterly wretched, devoid of any real spiritual or artistic merit of significance. It's the sort of thing you might see on the wall of a Mega-Church just to fill up the otherwise balnd and soulless space.
Rhyfelwyr
03-11-2010, 21:16
The painting is idolatrous, I'm going to hire a mob and protest outside the French embassy in London with banners reading "Christianity will rule the world"...
HoreTore
03-11-2010, 22:01
The painting is idolatrous, I'm going to hire a mob and protest outside the French embassy in London with banners reading "Christianity will rule the world"...
Christianity likes idols, unfortunately...
Rhyfelwyr
03-11-2010, 22:44
Christianity likes idols, unfortunately...
No, pagans masquerading under Christianity like idols. Second commandment and all that...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2010, 23:21
Christianity likes idols, unfortunately...
Yeah, Christians also like to kill babies, everyone knows that's true.
Tired of trolling yet?
Louis VI the Fat
03-11-2010, 23:59
Orthodoxy revolves around idols. Protestants acuse Catholics of idolatry.
The painting is by some girl I know. Just curious to see what people think of it. Me, I rather like it. I don't appreciate it for any artistic merit, but there is a sincere faith behind it, deeply felt hope for redemption.
Centurion1
03-12-2010, 00:09
No, pagans masquerading under Christianity like idols. Second commandment and all that...
What is this directed at Catholicism?
We like our statues we dont bloody worship them excuse me for having a bit of culture. We pray to what they represent. Possibly the weakest argument against Catholicism ever.
:clown:
The painting is by some girl I know. Just curious to see what people think of it. Me, I rather like it. I don't appreciate it for any artistic merit, but there is a sincere faith behind it, deeply felt hope for redemption.
Its okay. It is full of emotion though it screams at you off the page.
Rhyfelwyr
03-12-2010, 00:31
We pray to what they represent.
Well, it could be argued that the distinction between dulia and latria is a false one. And are you suggesting the glory of God is in any way manifested in those graven images?! Makes me wonder what people are worshipping when they see them...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-12-2010, 00:57
Orthodoxy revolves around idols. Protestants acuse Catholics of idolatry.
The painting is by some girl I know. Just curious to see what people think of it. Me, I rather like it. I don't appreciate it for any artistic merit, but there is a sincere faith behind it, deeply felt hope for redemption.
See, now I feel bad. I was looking at it from a different kant, for starters I (for some reason) assumed a man painted it. It looks different painting by a woman, sincere for starters.
Well, it could be argued that the distinction between dulia and latria is a false one. And are you suggesting the glory of God is in any way manifested in those graven images?! Makes me wonder what people are worshipping when they see them...
Icons are different to Idols, there are books and books written on this, but it boils down to "an image is worth a thousand words".
a completely inoffensive name
03-12-2010, 02:28
Yeah, Christians also like to kill babies, everyone knows that's true.
Tired of trolling yet?
Hey, is someone doing my job? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0QjcGgLBjQ)
HoreTore
03-12-2010, 09:54
Yeah, Christians also like to kill babies, everyone knows that's true.
Tired of trolling yet?
Please supply me with whatever you're smoking.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-12-2010, 09:59
Please supply me with whatever you're smoking.
Not read Tacitus or Pliny the Younger then, I take it?
Tellos Athenaios
03-12-2010, 12:14
Ah yes; one more “flagitia et odium humani generis” ? But you missed the cannibalism (“eating of the meal”) and incest (“Oedipal practices”).
Centurion1
03-12-2010, 15:09
Well, it could be argued that the distinction between dulia and latria is a false one. And are you suggesting the glory of God is in any way manifested in those graven images?! Makes me wonder what people are worshipping when they see them...
your misrepresenting what hey represent o a catholic. Have you ever talked to a catholic before. We do not worship the statues in any way shape or form they are simply religious art. They are just an artists imagery of whatever that religious figure represented. you cant be serious right now. i honestly do not understand how protestants can literally believe catholics worship our statues. I dont believe you are all stupid enough to fall into those money traps with the preachers on tv who ask you for money and drive rolls royces.
:clown:
Rhyfelwyr
03-12-2010, 15:33
your misrepresenting what hey represent o a catholic. Have you ever talked to a catholic before. We do not worship the statues in any way shape or form they are simply religious art. They are just an artists imagery of whatever that religious figure represented. you cant be serious right now. i honestly do not understand how protestants can literally believe catholics worship our statues. I dont believe you are all stupid enough to fall into those money traps with the preachers on tv who ask you for money and drive rolls royces.
:clown:
I never actually said that you worship the images, I just said that the line between worship and reverence, and what is in breach of the second commandment, is quite blurred. Look at the instances of destroying idols in the OT, for example.
Anyway, my main point is that it is wrong to think that an image can represent God.
Centurion1
03-12-2010, 15:35
I never actually said that you worship the images, I just said that the line between worship and reverence, and what is in breach of the second commandment, is quite blurred. Look at the instances of destroying idols in the OT, for example.
Anyway, my main point is that it is wrong to think that an image can represent God.
i dont know if i can even discuss something seriously with you when you think i am a soldier of the anti-christ. and i dont even revere them. they are only art to me.
Rhyfelwyr
03-12-2010, 17:05
i dont know if i can even discuss something seriously with you when you think i am a soldier of the anti-christ. and i dont even revere them. they are only art to me.
If you don't revere them, then you are being a very naughty Catholic. Mary is not only due dulia or reverence, but hyperdulia, through her likeness as is expressed in the icons. So, looks like you need to get in contact with your priest and get him to sacrifice Jesus for you all over again in the Mass...
OK I'm just being a :clown: now, but this rhetoric is fun
The Wizard
03-12-2010, 17:15
The painting looks like the guy's having a good orgasm
gaelic cowboy
03-12-2010, 17:25
Is it me or does he look a bit like Kurt Cobain
HoreTore
03-12-2010, 19:00
Not read Tacitus or Pliny the Younger then, I take it?
What on earth are you talking about....?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-12-2010, 21:16
What on earth are you talking about....?
The accusations that Christians worshiped some sort of death-idol, a human corpse, etc. went along with accusations of ritual murder and canabalism (as Tellos noted) in the First and Second centuries AD. So you're basically parroting really old anti-Christian slander.
Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are famous Roman writers from around 100 AD.
HoreTore
03-12-2010, 21:27
The accusations that Christians worshiped some sort of death-idol, a human corpse, etc. went along with accusations of ritual murder and canabalism (as Tellos noted) in the First and Second centuries AD. So you're basically parroting really old anti-Christian slander.
Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are famous Roman writers from around 100 AD.
That has about zero relevance to my post, sorry. Do try again though.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-12-2010, 22:00
That has about zero relevance to my post, sorry. Do try again though.
Oh it does.
You know nothing about Christian beliefs, as you have admitted in the past, now you parrot ancient prejudices. You pronounce concerning things you neither know nor understand.
Your eyes are open but you do not see, as they say.
Now, either produce an argument or go away, cheap shots add nothing to the debate.
Louis VI the Fat
03-12-2010, 22:00
Is Ratzinger getting nervous yet? First Germany. Then his diocese. Now his brother.
Will the accusations hit the very heart of the church? Will there be allegations of...the unthinkable? Ooohh....new revelations.
I think I can smell Ratzinger sweat nervously all the way from over here.
Pope Benedict's former diocese rehoused abuser priest
Pope Benedict once unwittingly approved housing for a priest accused of child sex abuse, his former diocese has said.
The episode dates back to 1980 when he was archbishop of Germany's Munich and Freising diocese and known as Joseph Ratzinger.
However, a former deputy said he - not the future pope - made the decision to rehouse the priest, who later abused other children and was convicted.
Roman Catholic clergy have recently been linked to paedophilia scandals.
The Pope himself has defended celibacy among priests, saying it is a sign of "full devotion" to the Catholic Church.
Following a report in the Munich-based newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the diocese of Munich and Freising confirmed that Archbishop Ratzinger had let the priest, known only as H, stay at a vicarage in Munich for "therapy".
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif The repeated employment of H in priestly spiritual duties was a bad mistake http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif
H had been suspected of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform a sex act upon him in the northern city of Essen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8565294.stm
So a pederast rapist was protected by Ratzinger.
Oh no, wait, a former deputy iimmediately came forward with the claim that of course he, and not Ratzinger, made the decision. :juggle2:
Getting nervous yet, you little fascist?
https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/5994/ratzingerhitlersalute.jpg
Strike For The South
03-12-2010, 22:05
:popcorn:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-12-2010, 22:08
Ooohh....new revelations.
I think I can smell Ratzinger sweat nervously all the way from over here.
So a pederast rapist was protected by Ratzinger.
Oh no, wait, a former deputy iimmediately came forward with the claim that of course he, and not Ratzinger, made the decision. :juggle2:
Getting nervous yet, you little fascist?
https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/5994/ratzingerhitlersalute.jpg
You honestly believe the Pope was a sincere Nazi bigot, Loius?
In any case, I suspect Benedict knew nothing about the abuse in this instance. Roman Catholicism encourages adherence to the hierarchy and forms of behavoiur. In many cases I suspect priests were re-housed without anyone looking into the allergations. Further, an Archbishop is unlikely to have dealt with this messy affair personally, he would have just signed the paperwork.
However, this does not mean Pope Benedict never protected a pederast.
However, he must be considered innocent until proven guilty; just like anyone else.
HoreTore
03-12-2010, 22:15
However, he must be considered innocent until proven guilty; just like anyone else.
That's a ridiculous thing to say about a person who cannot ever be found guilty.
Louis VI the Fat
03-12-2010, 22:23
You honestly believe the Pope was a sincere Nazi bigot, Loius?No, I do not believe Ratzinger was a fascist.
I believe Ratzinger is a fascist.
Society of St. Pius X :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X
Paul Touvier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Touvier)
In 1989, Paul Touvier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Touvier), a former Vichy French official (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France) and a fugitive wanted for war crimes, was arrested in Nice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice). The SSPX stated at the time that Touvier had been granted asylum there as "an act of charity to a homeless man".[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-25) In 1994, Touvier was sentenced to life imprisonment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment) for ordering the execution of seven Jews at Rillieux-la-Pape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rillieux-la-Pape) in 1944, in reprisal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisal) for the French Resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquis_%28WWII%29)'s killing of the Vichy minister Philippe Henriot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Henriot).[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-26) On his death in 1996, a Requiem Mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_Mass) for the repose of Touvier's soul was offered by Father Philippe Laguérie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Lagu%C3%A9rie),[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-27) an SSPX priest who was then the Rector of the Parisian church of St Nicolas du Chardonnet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nicolas_du_Chardonnet).[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-28)
The arrest of a pro-Nazi French militia leader in a priory operated by followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has touched off new debate about the role of Roman Catholic clergy in protecting war criminals.
http://www.angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=831A German pope with a Hitler Jugend past rehabilitated this reactionary/fascist Society. What should I call Ratzinger then? A communist resistance fighter?
The world is better aquainted with Richard Williamson:
Benedict rehabilitated Williamson, Fellay and two other members of the society last week as part of his efforts to bring the traditionalist society, which opposes many of the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, back into the Vatican's fold.
Jewish groups denounced Benedict for embracing Williamson, who denied during an interview broadcast last week on Swedish state TV that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. He said only about 200,000 or 300,000 were killed.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/01/28/rehabilitated_bishop_is_silenced_by_sect/
However, he must be considered innocent until proven guilty; just like anyone else.Oh, no need to worry. I'm sure Rome will declare the 11 year old boy forgiven for his sins.
Louis VI the Fat
03-12-2010, 23:14
I must not forget my Spanish friends, who were treated to a spiritual Guernica by our Hitlerjugend pope:
Fighting broke out outside a church in Rome yesterday after the Pope beatified 498 priests and nuns killed in the Spanish Civil War.
In a speech to 30,000 – mainly Spanish – pilgrims in St Peter’s Square, Pope Benedict XVI paid tribute to the “martyrs” of the 1936-39 war and put them on the path to sainthood. “Their words and gestures of forgiveness towards their persecutors should enable us to work towards reconciliation and peaceful coexistence,” he said.
The Roman Catholic Church largely supported Franco during the war and its aftermath. Critics said it was again choosing sides by honouring victims on only one side and that the Pope should have recognised the Church’s role in supporting a fascist dictator who killed untold thousands and overthrew a democratically elected government.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2758581.ece
What should I call Ratzinger then? A communist resistance fighter?
That would be an ecumenical matter. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66SlBA948o)
gaelic cowboy
03-12-2010, 23:58
COLM: Hello there Father.
TED: Ah, hello Colm. Out and about?
COLM: Ah, same as yourself.
TED: Good good.
COLM: I hear you're a racist now Father.
TED: Wha...What?
COLM: How did you get interested in that type of thing?
TED: Who said I'm a racist?
COLM: Everyone's sayin' it Father. Should we all be racist now? What's the official line the church is takin' on this.
TED: No, no.
COLM: Only the farm takes up most of the day and at night I just like a cup of tea. I mightn't be able to devote meself to the oul' racism.
MRS. CARBERRY: Good for you Father.
TED: What? Oh, Mrs. Carberry!
MRS. CARBERRY: Good for you Father. Well someone had the guts to stand up to them at last. Comin' over here, takin' our jobs and our women and actin' like they own the feckin' place. Well done Father. Good for you. Good for you. I'd like to feckin....
MRS. CARBERRY: Feckin' Greeks.
COLM: It isn't the Greeks, it's the Chinese he's after.
TED: I'm not after the Chinese.
MRS. CARBERRY: I don't care who he gets so long as I can have a go at the Greeks. They invented gayness!
Rhyfelwyr
03-13-2010, 00:20
lmao, the Catholics of the Backroom are having a fun time of it today. :laugh4:
Louis and myself are reforging the Auld Alliance through a common enemy...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-13-2010, 00:48
A German pope with a Hitler Jugend past rehabilitated this reactionary/fascist Society. What should I call Ratzinger then? A communist resistance fighter?
I don't know, but you might want to consider his old boss, the Polish resistence fighter, who set him up for the job.
No?
Just a thought there.
Centurion1
03-13-2010, 02:18
COLM: Hello there Father.
TED: Ah, hello Colm. Out and about?
COLM: Ah, same as yourself.
TED: Good good.
COLM: I hear you're a racist now Father.
TED: Wha...What?
COLM: How did you get interested in that type of thing?
TED: Who said I'm a racist?
COLM: Everyone's sayin' it Father. Should we all be racist now? What's the official line the church is takin' on this.
TED: No, no.
COLM: Only the farm takes up most of the day and at night I just like a cup of tea. I mightn't be able to devote meself to the oul' racism.
MRS. CARBERRY: Good for you Father.
TED: What? Oh, Mrs. Carberry!
MRS. CARBERRY: Good for you Father. Well someone had the guts to stand up to them at last. Comin' over here, takin' our jobs and our women and actin' like they own the feckin' place. Well done Father. Good for you. Good for you. I'd like to feckin....
MRS. CARBERRY: Feckin' Greeks.
COLM: It isn't the Greeks, it's the Chinese he's after.
TED: I'm not after the Chinese.
MRS. CARBERRY: I don't care who he gets so long as I can have a go at the Greeks. They invented gayness!
I've always wanted to name my son colm (i was almost named it) whenever i say the name all the folks back in the states act like im a loon and i wanna name my kind like apple or something. I right like the name though.
A German pope with a Hitler Jugend past rehabilitated this reactionary/fascist Society. What should I call Ratzinger then? A communist resistance fighter?
what about a young boy forced into it no matter what he may have thought at the time who has asked forgiveness for what happened many a time. Catholics were not exactly the favorite peoples of hitler you know.
Louis VI the Fat
03-13-2010, 03:19
I don't know, but you might want to consider his old boss, the Polish resistence fighter, who set him up for the job.
No?No. One anti-communist monarch does not erase two millenia of this divine comedy. The Holy See, that's the history of power-hungry Medicis, warring Roman families, nepotists, torturers, warmongering philandering pederast indulgence sellers. Nothing holy about it.
I'm sure the piousness of the fourteen-year old shepherd girl is true. As is the wish of most Catholics to live the right way, to do what is right.
But as for the Vatican - no more mercy for it than for Scientology.
a completely inoffensive name
03-13-2010, 06:08
Wait, people actually think the Pope isnt a Nazi?
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 09:30
No. One anti-communist monarch does not erase two millenia of this divine comedy. The Holy See, that's the history of power-hungry Medicis, warring Roman families, nepotists, torturers, warmongering philandering pederast indulgence sellers. Nothing holy about it.
I'm sure the piousness of the fourteen-year old shepherd girl is true. As is the wish of most Catholics to live the right way, to do what is right.
But as for the Vatican - no more mercy for it than for Scientology.
Bah, Louis. The former popes were living in a world controlled by all-powerful kings and nobility, who did everything the popes did wrong plus a whole lot more.
Compare the popes of the middle ages to the inbred war criminals who controlled Germany, France, England etc, and the popes actually come out on top.
EDIT: However, their support for fascist control of Europe cannot be forgiven in any way whatsoever.
a completely inoffensive name
03-13-2010, 09:41
Bah, Louis. The former popes were living in a world controlled by all-powerful kings and nobility, who did everything the popes did wrong plus a whole lot more.
Compare the popes of the middle ages to the inbred war criminals who controlled Germany, France, England etc, and the popes actually come out on top.
EDIT: However, their support for fascist control of Europe cannot be forgiven in any way whatsoever.
Wait, I'm confused, why are you defending the popes?
MY WHOLE WORLD IS CRASHING DOWN UPON ME!
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 09:46
Wait, I'm confused, why are you defending the popes?
MY WHOLE WORLD IS CRASHING DOWN UPON ME!
Must be because I'm such a perfectly balanced, objective and unpartial man without any prejudice who treats everyone fairly.
Obviously...
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 09:53
Oh it does.
You know nothing about Christian beliefs, as you have admitted in the past, now you parrot ancient prejudices. You pronounce concerning things you neither know nor understand.
Your eyes are open but you do not see, as they say.
Now, either produce an argument or go away, cheap shots add nothing to the debate.
EDIT:
:wall:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-13-2010, 11:07
EDIT:
:wall:
so no argument then? In that case don't make sweeping statements about a religion you know next to nothing about.
No. One anti-communist monarch does not erase two millenia of this divine comedy. The Holy See, that's the history of power-hungry Medicis, warring Roman families, nepotists, torturers, warmongering philandering pederast indulgence sellers. Nothing holy about it.
I'm sure the piousness of the fourteen-year old shepherd girl is true. As is the wish of most Catholics to live the right way, to do what is right.
But as for the Vatican - no more mercy for it than for Scientology.
I wasn't talking about Papal history, though there have been good Popes, I was talking about the current Pope and what his relationship with the last Pope says about his politics.
I.e. does he support Pious X because he's a Nazi, or because he's a traditionalist?
“the Polish resistence fighter” Jaryzelski? Oh, no, you probably speak of II, Jean Paul. The one who made nazi Saint (cf Croatian Aloysius Stepinac).
The problem with the high Catholic Clergy is so much anti-communist that they are loosing (if they ever get it) the plot: Nazism is bad.
Can be say the same for the Russian Orthodox one, mind you: They made Nicolas II a martyr and a Saint. The guy who ordered to shoot at a crowd demonstrating for bread…
Louis VI the Fat
03-13-2010, 16:11
The problem with the high Catholic Clergy It is a bit of a problem. At every provocation, I explode into a barrage of 'reactionary fascists Catholics'.
Whereas, in reality, for the past five decades or so, the church at the base is rather left wing, progressive. It's the churches that collect for the third world, that have done a lot to protect the weak, from the homeless to the illegal immigrant. With a theology that stresses solidarity, not exclusion.
Every church you enter, there is, apart from a collection to restore the church (the physical building), a collection for some project in some poor country. Not all of which can be brushed aside as winning souls when they're down and destitute.
Rhyfelwyr
03-13-2010, 17:26
Whereas, in reality, for the past five decades or so, the church at the base is rather left wing, progressive.
The work of Jesuits and their liberation theology, no doubt. The sinking of the Titanic was only the beginning...
Centurion1
03-13-2010, 17:54
The work of Jesuits and their liberation theology, no doubt. The sinking of the Titanic was only the beginning...
The footsoldiers of god helped maintain the Church against dirty heretical protestants like yourself.
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 18:42
so no argument then? In that case don't make sweeping statements about a religion you know next to nothing about.
If that's how you wish to see things; be my guest. I honestly don't care, the joke lost its fun 5 threads ago, now it's getting boring...
Rhyfelwyr
03-13-2010, 18:49
The footsoldiers of god helped maintain the Church against dirty heretical protestants like yourself.
They are the footsoldiers of their own wafer god, not the YHWH of the Bible.
gaelic cowboy
03-13-2010, 19:52
They are the footsoldiers of their own wafer god, not the YHWH of the Bible.
:rolleyes: As my mother used to say "Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile" my good man
Rhyfelwyr
03-13-2010, 20:17
:rolleyes: As my mother used to say "Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile" my good man
Is minic an fhírinne searbh.
gaelic cowboy
03-13-2010, 20:34
Is minic an fhírinne searbh.
Indeed it often is, now apply it to your own blinkered beliefs.
Centurion1
03-13-2010, 20:41
cool lets turn the thread to gaelic........
im not even going to have a religious argument who thinks im a worshiper for the anti-christ. :laugh:
gaelic cowboy
03-13-2010, 20:55
cool lets turn the thread to gaelic........
im not even going to have a religious argument who thinks im a worshiper for the anti-christ. :laugh:
I quite like the idea of being a Catholic Cylon working to bring hell fire to the Earth for the Beast.
Rhyfelwyr
03-13-2010, 21:01
I don't regard all Catholics as reprobate, since the word is still preached in their churches. My issue is with the Catholic Church as an institution, since the Bible says even the very elect will be deceived. As with Louis, my problem is with the upper echelons of the Vatican hierarchy, and the political and theological decisions they continue to enforce.
Centurion1
03-13-2010, 21:04
I don't regard all Catholics as reprobate, since the word is still preached in their churches. My issue is with the Catholic Church as an institution, since the Bible says even the very elect will be deceived. As with Louis, my problem is with the upper echelons of the Vatican hierarchy, and the political and theological decisions they continue to enforce.
i like my traditions thank you very much. predestination on the other hand is pure hogwash.
Centurion1
03-13-2010, 21:05
i hate my computer soooo slow sooo slow stupid double post AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!11
gaelic cowboy
03-13-2010, 21:06
I don't regard all Catholics as reprobate, since the word is still preached in their churches. My issue is with the Catholic Church as an institution, since the Bible says even the very elect will be deceived. As with Louis, my problem is with the upper echelons of the Vatican hierarchy, and the political and theological decisions they continue to enforce.
It seems to required to be pointed out this is a thread on how secular society is threatened by religion which would include yourself.
HoreTore
03-13-2010, 21:11
It seems to required to be pointed out this is a thread on how secular society is threatened by religion which would include yourself.
Not if he keeps his religion inside the walls of his home.
gaelic cowboy
03-13-2010, 21:18
Not if he keeps his religion inside the walls of his home.
Unfortunately thats not the case as evidence I present to your honour this link The Whore of Babylon (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126919-The-Whore-of-Babylon) as evidence he believes in a literal interpretation of said book. One minute he says its ok I don't really believe and then a minute later he says "oh but it cannot be dismissed so easy" etc etc this kind of thinking is why people go around padlocking swingsets in playgrounds or worse actually killing each other in my country.
Rhyfelwyr
03-13-2010, 21:26
It seems to required to be pointed out this is a thread on how secular society is threatened by religion which would include yourself.
Yes, I don't agree with Catholicism, so obviously I'm going to institutionalise my beliefs in the political system and persecute everyone I don't agree with.
or worse actually killing each other in my country.
What an ironic comment given the man you celebrate in your sig...
gaelic cowboy
03-13-2010, 21:34
Yes, I don't agree with Catholicism, so obviously I'm going to institutionalise my beliefs in the political system and persecute everyone I don't agree with.
But you have done it Britain HAS institutionalised its beliefs and so on ad infinitum.
an ironic comment given the man you celebrate in your sig...
Not really they were all fools following there skygod both Cromwell and the Royalists and the Confederetes
Rhyfelwyr
03-13-2010, 21:50
But you have done it Britain HAS institutionalised its beliefs and so on ad infinitum.
And that has what to do with me personally?
Not really they were all fools following there skygod both Cromwell and the Royalists and the Confederetes
I don't see how that makes it any less ironic.
gaelic cowboy
03-13-2010, 22:01
And that has what to do with me personally?
Same as you claim for me even though I don't believe in your man in the clouds watching me all day. You have been on here in this forum for two or three days now writing religious fairy stories and quoting from Ian Paisley websites if don't mind anyone who take that stuff too seriously which you seem too needs to chilll out.
I don't see how that makes it any less ironic.
Of course you wouldnt when you hold an historcist position on revelations the line in question is a fragment of a poem, an interesting historical footnote nothing more.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-13-2010, 22:52
“the Polish resistence fighter” Jaryzelski? Oh, no, you probably speak of II, Jean Paul. The one who made nazi Saint (cf Croatian Aloysius Stepinac).
The problem with the high Catholic Clergy is so much anti-communist that they are loosing (if they ever get it) the plot: Nazism is bad.
Can be say the same for the Russian Orthodox one, mind you: They made Nicolas II a martyr and a Saint. The guy who ordered to shoot at a crowd demonstrating for bread…
So.... John Paul didn't fight the Nazi's in WWII? Also, I looked up the Croatian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac
He condemned genocide during the war and managed to save many of the country's Jews. There doesn't seem much justice to his trial and imprisonment, and the whole thing looks like a half-hearted political move that even Tito wasn't really willing to carry through.
So I think you're wrong here.
It is a bit of a problem. At every provocation, I explode into a barrage of 'reactionary fascists Catholics'.
Whereas, in reality, for the past five decades or so, the church at the base is rather left wing, progressive. It's the churches that collect for the third world, that have done a lot to protect the weak, from the homeless to the illegal immigrant. With a theology that stresses solidarity, not exclusion.
Every church you enter, there is, apart from a collection to restore the church (the physical building), a collection for some project in some poor country. Not all of which can be brushed aside as winning souls when they're down and destitute.
It's an ulgy fact if you want to see religion die; relgion does a lot of good. There was a chap wrote an article in the Times a few years ago where he admitted that, despite being an atheist, he had come to believe what Africa needed was Christianity. He said he had been forced to accept that it was the specifically Christian ethos and charitable imperative that made people's lives better; not the charitable projects alone.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.