Bad Juju! You no logged in or no introduced to the frogman. Log-in or register. Or suffer mucho hoo-doos.

The Bar

Have a drink and talk about:

Dissident Frogman and Al-Qaeda Agree ♠ Dissident Frogman et Al-Qaeda En Accord
the dissident frogman | Tue, February 24, 2004 | Permalink | 520 hits

Post

You're not logged-in, so your comment will be held for approval; check the "Help" tab for details.

Vous n'avez pas ouvert de session, votre commentaire doit être approuvé avant publication; voyez "Aide" pour les détails.


Comment form

Red-framed fields required. Email address will NOT be published or shared but may be used for a direct answer, on my part only.

Les champs bordés de rouge sont requis. L'adresse email ne sera PAS publiée ou partagée mais pourra être utilisée pour une réponse directe, de ma part seulement.


Guidelines | consignes

DISCLAIMER: in my experience, the following doesn't apply to 99% of my readership. Unfortunately, experience also shows it has to be written down for the remaining 1%.

The short version, when it comes to my comments policy, goes down to a line taken from the (mediocre) second opus of the Matrix:

"I built this place. Down here, I make the rules."

Let's elaborate a bit:

  1. Try to stay on topic. If you have a beef against the cow-fart(1) induced climate change and this post is about monkey spanking(2), then it's not the place to draw your sword(3).
    I have nothing against a freewheeling conversation, but if it's off-topic AND stupid or offensive, then it will have a badly limited lifespan.
  2. Consider the two following statements…
    • I'm totally open-minded when it comes to rational ideas.
    • It is quite obvious that Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, Islamism, Nationalism, Racism, Collectivism(4) and Multiculturalism (non-exhaustive list) exist in complete contradiction with Reason.
    … And guess the total amount of tolerance you can expect from me if you indulge in any of these.
  3. If you shall persist in these ways nevertheless, understand that I'm not spending countless hours of work on this site to "reach out", "debate" with you, "understand" your "root causes" or "learn" about your religion. Unlike race, ideology is something we choose, and for which we must bear all responsibilities. I loathe your sick mindset and what you defend and promote. I've heard all your pitiful excuses for your despicable totalitarian psyche and your compulsion to coerce or enslave your fellow men and women in the name of some "greater good".
    So understand that this is not a public forum: it is my outpost in the culture war you wage against me, my kin, my rights and my freedom — thus, you will only be tolerated here, and only if I decide so. I call the shots and I owe you nothing. As a matter of fact, I don't like having you around, so the only argument you're truly entitled to hear from me would come, if you insist, amplified through the barrel of my Sig-Sauer high powered rifle(5) — because when it comes to intolerant scumbags, I'm an intolerant bastard.
    So keep your distances, and nobody gets hurt.
  4. I also have a very limited patience for social-democrats of all race and creed, center-of-center jellyfish and buttermonkey(6) hybrids, Blame-America-First (and always) Libertarians (usually of the Rothbardian school), Hollywood idiots & Festival-de-Cannes cretins and those Parisians who fancy themselves as an elite when they are nothing but the developed world's rednecks(7). However, I tend to ignore them, so they may consider themselves lucky if they manage to draw some sarcasm in colorful language from me.
  5. Yeah, and don't get me started on journalists and the Wonderful World of Mainstream Media...
  6. American and British soldiers (including the Commonwealth) stand on a special pedestal in my personal pantheon. Disrespect them here, and you'll quickly wish you'd rather stand naked in Mecca during Hajj, wearing only a sign that reads "Muhammad was a pedophile".
  7. I may moderate, remove or edit anything and give neither excuses nor explanations. It has nothing to do with "censorship": I am not a State, you are not a coerced citizen of said State and so you are always free to express yourself on your own facility and by your own means. Commenting is not a right, it is a privilege I grant or take away, according to my right as the owner of this place.
  8. My site is not awfully biased: it's shamelessly opinioned. If you're on my side, you get my vote and are free to rant 'n' roll. If not, live with it or go rot in the gutter.
  9. Oh and, if you're a vegan, be advised that I hunt, kill, cook(8) and eat all sorts of animals, and thoroughly enjoy the whole lot of it. Have fun with your carrots, Doc.
  1. Ha ha. Beef. Cow. Geddit?
  2. It's been known to happen.
  3. Neither is the guestbook by the way.
  4. That includes of course all its variations: Socialism, National-Socialist, Communism, Fascism, etc.
  5. With a loud 'Bang'
  6. Nope, don't know what species is that either, but it does sound like a particularly vile creature, doesn't it?
  7. Tell me London, New-York, Sydney or Tokyo, but Paris is a dump.
  8. Frequently in some sort of wine sauce or with loads of tears-pulling spices. Grapes and pepper count as veggie stuff right?

AVERTISSEMENT : selon mon expérience, ce qui suit ne s'applique pas à 99% de mes lecteurs. Malheureusement, l'expérience prouve aussi qu'il faut que cela soit écrit pour le pourcentage restant.

La version courte, concernant ma politique pour les commentaires, se résume à une ligne tirée du second (médiocre) volet de Matrix:

"J'ai construit cet endroit. Ici, je fais les lois."

Élaborons un brin :

  1. Il existe une subtile différence entre "être familier" et "traiter familièrement". Cela signifie que les culs-sales qui s'imaginent débarquer ici et me tutoyer comme si nous avions gardé les piquets de grève ensemble verront leur contribution à la conversation éradiquée sans autre forme de procès. Quelle que soit la pertinence de ladite contribution. Même si vous n'êtes Vraiment Pas Content® avec ce que j'écris, cela ne vous dispense pas de surveiller vos manières : tant que je n'ai pas été présenté à votre chère Maman, nous nous vouvoierons. Vu ?
  2. Évitez le hors-sujet. Si vous avez une rancune à l'égard de l'impact des pets de vache sur le changement climatique et que cet article traite de la fessée de macaque(1), alors ce n'est pas l'endroit d'où lancer votre croisade (2).
    Je n'ai rien contre une conversation à bâtons rompus, mais si c'est hors-sujet ET stupide ou insultant, ça aura une durée de vie salement limitée.
  3. Considérez les deux affirmations suivantes...
    • J'ai une ouverture d'esprit totale en ce qui concerne toutes idées rationnelles.
    • Il est évident qu' Anti-américanisme, anti-Sémitisme, Islamisme, Nationalisme, Racisme, Collectivisme(3) et Multiculturalisme (liste non-exhaustive) existent en complète contradiction avec la Raison.
    ... Et tâchez de devinez la dose totale de tolérance que vous pouvez attendre de moi si vous cédez à l'une de ces sirènes.
  4. Si vous deviez cependant persister dans ces voies, comprenez que je ne dépense pas un nombre incalculable d'heures de travail sur ce site pour vous "tendre la main", "débattre" avec vous, "comprendre" vos "causes profondes" ou "apprendre à connaitre" votre religion. Contrairement à la race, l'idéologie est le résultat de nos choix, et nous devons en supporter l'entière responsabilité. J'abhorre votre mentalité tarée, et ce que vous défendez et promouvez. J'ai entendu toutes vos pitoyables excuses pour votre détestable psyché de totalitaire et votre compulsion à forcer et réduire vos semblables en esclavage au nom d'un quelconque "intérêt général".
    Comprenez donc que ceci n'est pas un forum publique : c'est mon avant-poste dans la guerre culturelle que vous lancez contre moi, mes semblables, mes droits et ma liberté — vous ne serez que toléré ici, et seulement si je le décide. Je tire les ficelles, et ne vous doit rien. En fait je n'aime pas vous voir dans le coin, et en conséquence les seuls arguments de ma part auxquels vous puissiez réellement prétendre, si vous insistez, se transmettent par le canon de ma carabine de fort calibre Sig-Sauer(4) — Parce dès qu'ils s'agit d'ordures intolérantes, je suis un salaud d'intolérant.
    Alors gardez vos distances, et personne ne sera blessé.
  5. J'ai aussi un patience très limitée pour les sociaux-démocrates de toute confession et couleur, les centristes-du-centre fruits de l'union d'une méduse et d'un cul de singe, les Libertarés de l'École Rothbard conditionnés au "C'est la faute à l'Amérique, toujours et partout", Les Idiots d'Hollywood et les Crétins-de-Cannes, de même que ces parisiens qui se prennent pour une élite alors qu'ils ne sont que les bouseux du monde développé (5). J'ai cependant tendance à les ignorer, et ils peuvent donc s'estimer chanceux s'ils arrivent à me soutirer ne serait-ce qu'un sarcasme en langage fleuri.
  6. Ouais, et ne me lancez pas sur les journalistes et le Monde Merveilleux des Medias...
  7. Les soldats Américains et Britanniques (parmi lesquels j'inclue le Commonwealth) prennent place sur un piédestal particulier dans mon panthéon personnel. Manquez leur de respect ici, et vous souhaiterez rapidement vous trouver plutôt à la Mecque en période Hajj, tout nu avec seulement une pancarte autour du coup sur laquelle on puisse lire "Mahomet était un pédophile".
  8. Je peux modérer, supprimer ou éditer quoi que ce soit, sans fournir d'excuses ni d'explications. Cela n'a rien à voir avec de la “censure”, pour une raison très simple : je ne suis pas un État, vous n'êtes pas un citoyen opprimé dudit État et demeurez donc libre de vous exprimer sur votre propre support et par vos propres moyens. Commenter n'est pas un droit, c'est un privilège que j'accorde ou refuse selon mon droit de propriétaire des lieux.
  9. Mon site n'est pas affreusement partial, il est impudemment orienté. Si vous êtes de mon côté, vous avez mon aval et êtes libre de disserter à l'envi. Sinon, faites avec ou allez crever dans le caniveau.
  10. Oh, et si vous êtes végétarien, sachez que je chasse, tue, cuisine(6) et bouffe toutes sortes d'animaux, et que j'apprécie le tout sans aucune retenue. Soyez heureux avec vos carottes Docteur.
  1. C'est déjà arrivé.
  2. C'est aussi valable pour le Livre d'Or.
  3. Ce qui inclue aussi ses variantes : Socialisme, National-Socialisme, Communisme, Fascisme, etc.
  4. Avec un gros 'Bang'
  5. Londres, New-York, Sydney ou Tokyo, d'accord. Mais Paris, c'est un bled de cul-terreux.
  6. Généralement avec une sauce au vin, ou alors des poignées d'épices à t'arracher la tripaille. Le raisin et les piments, ça compte comme trucs de végétarien, non ?

Help

  1. As an additional layer of defense against comment spamming and surf-by shooting, I enacted a set of restrictions on how you can post a comment as a simple guest on my site (i.e. either when you're not registered as a member, or registered but not logged in), starting with pre-publishing comment approval. As approving comments will take a certain — and variable — amount of time, I invite you to check-in if you're serious about joigning the conversation in real time.
  2. Non-authenticated users are also limited to the following HTML tags:
    • Bold (<strong></strong>)
    • Italic (<em></em>)
    • Underline (<u></u>)
    • Quote (<blockquote></blockquote>)
    Don't bother entering any other tags, as they will automagically get stripped on posting.
  3. Members have access to a greater range of tags and publishing tools, and they can also choose to be informed by email of follow-up comments, for any given thread.
  4. Members also have an easier and more straightforward posting process. Some of the system defenses are lowered for them, and the details fields (name, etc.) are pre-filled with the information they entered in their profile.
  5. Members have a greater chance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, while it will be assumed that, in addition to an opinion, strangers have stinky feet and greasy fingers. They may therefore be regarded with great condescension by regular members and the dissident frogman alike, and derided accordingly. So wash your feet, your hands, and register.
  6. A reminder: you decide what you write, no matter how brilliant or stupid it might be, and the fact that I let it go published doesn't mean I condone, agree or disagree with it—no matter if I answer it or not. Hey, you're supposed to be a responsible adult, right?

If you need further help with the site, you may want to check the Field Manual. Ultimately, you can also drop me a line. I usually don't answer jellyfish and buttermonkey(1) hybrids however.

  1. Nope, don't know what species is that either, but it does sound like a particularly vile creature, doesn't it?
  1. En défense contre le spam et les tirs isolés, j'ai établi un ensemble de restrictions sur l'ajout de commentaires par les simples visiteurs sur le site (i.e. soit lorsque vous n'êtes pas enregistré comme membre, soit lorsque vous l'êtes, mais n'avez pas ouvert une session), dont notamment la modération avant publication. L’approbation des commentaires prenant un temps certain et variable, je vous invite donc à vous inscrire, si vous envisagez sérieusement de participer à la conversation en temps réel.
  2. Les utilisateurs non authentifiés sont également limités aux balises HTML suivantes :
    • Gras (<strong></strong>)
    • Italique (<em></em>)
    • Souligné (<u></u>)
    • Citation (<blockquote></blockquote>)
    Ne vous fatiguez pas à en utiliser d'autres, le texte passe par un filtre de suppression lors de la publication.
  3. Les membres ont accès à une plus large sélection d'outils et de balises, et ils peuvent choisir pour chaque 'conversation' à laquelle ils prennent part d'être informé par email des réponses.
  4. Les membres ont également un "processus de publication" plus simple et direct. Certaines défenses du système sont abaissées pour eux, et les champs des détails sont pré-remplis avec les informations qu'ils ont entré dans leur profil.
  5. Les membres ont une plus grande chance d'entrer au Royaume des Cieux, tandis que l'on considèrera que, en sus d'une opinion, les visiteurs venus d'ailleurs ont les doigts gras et les pieds sales. Ils pourront de ce fait être traité avec grande condescendance par les autres membres et le dissident frogman de même, et ridiculisés en conséquence. Alors lavez vos mains, vos pieds, et inscrivez-vous.
  6. Pour mémoire : vous décidez de ce que vous écrivez, aussi brillant ou stupide que cela soit, et le fait que j'en autorise la publication ne signifie pas que je l'approuve ou le désapprouve, et cela que j'y réponde ou non. Hé, vous êtes censé vous comporter en adulte responsable, s'pas ?

Si vous avez besoin de plus d'aide avec le site, jetez un œil au manuel d'instruction. Au pire, vous pouvez également m'envoyer un mot. J'ai cependant tendance à ne pas répondre aux fruits de l'union d'une méduse et d'un cul de singe.

Comments | Commentaires

LaFée | 4 years, 9 months ago
Avatar for LaFée
France
02/24 2004
04:27 PM

Un bravo et plein de bises ;)
pepe | 4 years, 9 months ago
Avatar for pepe
Italy
03/02 2004
12:53 AM

I strongly disagree with both Al Qaeda and this view:

“these people are not tolerant seculars but rabid anticlericals”

Try tell that to the Turkish secularists who also banned Islamic headscarves in state schools and offices.

Also, try imagine where Turkey would be without Ataturk’s legacy and the secularists.

I don’t like the French government’s policy in many many areas, especially foreign, but on this, they’re right on, and with good motives, as explained so well in the laicity commission report. Schools cannot be areas for religious fundamentalists proselytising.

Seeing a basic, simple principle like that as “intolerant secularism” is indeed in the same mentality as Al Qaeda.

Why, on the other hand, are so many French Muslim, especially women, supporting the ban?

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it.
pepe | 4 years, 9 months ago
Avatar for pepe
Italy
03/02 2004
01:04 AM

And, you’re wrong to claim it is an attack on freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice, worship, express one’s religion, and that’s still granted. That freedom doesn’t mean freedom of religion to turn neutral, secular environments like state schools into environments where religion becomes a factor of separation and conflict.

It’s a basic matter of relations between state and church, where both have their own separate environments, and have to keep out of each other’s business. The state won’t tell religious leaders what to preach in their churches, synagogues or mosques - the church, synagogues and mosques won’t demand their views and practiced be endorsed in the state’s own premises, where it is the state, not religion, which sets the rules.

Freedom of religion cannot mean making demands to change principles of education like equality between genders and equality between all religions. Everybody has to accept those principles, if they send their kids to a state school. They can’t demand their young girls be exempted from a class because their religion prevents them from taking that class. They are free to have their kids pursue education elsewhere where those special exemptions are granted, if it is allowed, but they can’t demand they be tolerated and endorsed in schools that must remain a neutral ground for all.

At least, that’s how I see it. The Islamic fundamentalists are typcally using this issue as an ideological battle tool, and in complete disregard of the actual wishes of the more secular-minded Muslims in France.

It is puzzling that some libertarians end up siding with the fundamentalists rather than the Muslims who accept and respect secular principles.
the dissident frogman | 4 years, 9 months ago
Avatar for the dissident frogman
Website
03/02 2004
01:30 AM
Comment 1239

“Try tell that to the Turkish secularists who also banned Islamic headscarves in state schools and offices. (...)”

Oh. So I’m writing that the French political class has a long tradition of rabid anticlericalism (starting with the French Revolution’s Jacobins) and you’re challenging me on the grounds that you believe the Turks are not. What’s your point exactly?

“they’re right on, and with good motives”

Nope. they’re off target and they know it - after all, part of them is completely helpless in dealing with the real threat, the other is staging a show to keep their seat warm with their own bottoms after the upcoming elections.

But they do have “good motives” indeed. That’s probably the only thing on which I would agree with them.

“Schools cannot be areas for religious fundamentalists proselytising.”

Indeed. And I could add as well that it’s not the place for any kind of proselytism, including political. But then, we would have to fire a good 90% of the teachers… Do you have any suggestion that might help?

Anyway, the ban is not aiming at the proselytes, but at the believers. For your information, the same state and local powers (region, town, etc.) that are now banning veiled schoolgirls in public schools will actually keep financing mosques where the bearded fundamentalists will preach their hate.

But thank to the Almighty State (praise be upon It), we’re safe from veiled little girls (even though little girls are not)

“Seeing a basic, simple principle like that as “intolerant secularism” is indeed in the same mentality as Al Qaeda.”

Well, in my book a “basic and simple principle” that targets each and every religions without distinction is what I call intolerant secularism. Don’t know how you call that.

“Why, on the other hand, are so many French Muslim, especially women, supporting the ban”

Maybe because, just like you, they don’t look beyond the appearances and see the real implications of this weak answer to a real problem?
the dissident frogman | 4 years, 9 months ago
Avatar for the dissident frogman
Website
03/02 2004
02:51 AM
Comment 1240

Sheesh. A second comment in no time. Prolific are you?

I’m afraid I have less time than you today to carry on with the conversation (maybe somebody else - who actually understood my post - will take on the burden), but in the meantime, I’ll just address the “emergency” points in your defense of the State Secularism.

There are several little details that you may want to consider first, as they may tamper a bit with your well-laid rant. For instance, when you say: “The state won’t tell religious leaders what to preach in their churches, synagogues or mosques - the church, synagogues and mosques won’t demand their views and practiced be endorsed in the state’s own premises, where it is the state, not religion, which sets the rules.”

Now that’s funny. I was under the impression that “the state’s own premises” supposedly belong to “the people” and that, therefore, it should be “the people” who set the rules - meaning the total sum of the individuals (including little girls) constituting the nation.

If so, “the state’s own premises” (let’s call them “public space” or “places” shall we?) would certainly not be some dull, bland, artificial monotonous space but the living and colorful pachwork of opinions, thoughts and beliefs (and clothing I imagine) of individuals respecting each other - as far as they’re not infringing each other’s rights to exist - and living their life accordingly under the willful acceptance of common moral values.

To be honest, I don’t really know what “the state” should be apart from that. But maybe I’m just an idealist.

So if it’s not, well… you can keep it (That’s rhetorical. I know it’s not. Yes, you can keep it.)

Because reading you, it seems that “the state” is some kind of immanent and omnipotent entity, separated from the society and somehow superior to it (Since it is setting its rules). Sounds like a God of some sort, if you ask me.

Well then, you can keep it too.

“They are free to have their kids pursue education elsewhere where those special exemptions are granted, if it is allowed, (…)”

Or to put it shorter: “They are free (…) if it is allowed” (by, again, the state I imagine?). That’s some kind of freedom all right.

Anyway, you are closer to the situation on the French field than you think. Since the French state keeps its monopoly on education (the few private Catholic or Jewish schools have to be registered with the French Ministry of National Education anyway), you’re actually quite right: they’ll be free when it’ll be allowed.

Hurray for allowed freedom.

Also, reading your litany on the much needed separation of the church and the state, my first reaction would be (and was) “Sure, sure. Nobody – besides the bearded barbarians – is challenging that, certainly not me. So what?”

For what’s really bothering indeed, is that you seem to take for granted the fact that the ban on religious symbols (particularly the headscarf) is the magic bullet that will solve all the problems at hand (particularly militant Islam’s advance).

If you can cut the Secular Slogan Spreading for one second and ask yourself that one, crucial question, then maybe you’ll see through the appearances and understand that the French state is following the Al-Qaeda way with this law. Although one is yearning to impose and the other to oppose, they both attempt to coerce the whole mass of the individuals for the benefit of some of them (mainly, oh-surprise, those who are enforcing the measure).

Overall, it actually has little to do with the separation of the church and the state. The state, as far as I’m informed is not financing the Muslims’ headscarf with public money. (although one could argue that as social benefits goes… But that’s another question.)

Seeing how you jump to conclusions in your last paragraph (“It is puzzling that some libertarians end up siding with the fundamentalists rather than the Muslims who accept and respect secular principles.”) I would conclude that you’re either having a cheap shot at me (And so I won’t even bother to refer you to the archive section of this blog, in case you want to check my records as far as fundamentalists are concerned) or you simply didn’t read past the post’s title (where it says “dissident frogman and al-Qaeda agree”.)

I should therefore suggest you go back to the top of the page, and read the whole thing. You may notice that what really is bothering me, is that this restriction on people’s freedom, while being a consistent conquest for the rabid anticlerical lurking in the French Statist since the Jacobins, will have no effect on the bearded barbarians. So much for “siding with the fundamentalists”.

And, by the way, who the hell are you calling a “libertarian” ?
pepe | 4 years, 9 months ago
Avatar for pepe
Italy
03/02 2004
05:29 AM

Dear Dissident Frogman, there’s no need to react like I blew a nuke in your comment section, I’m only strongly disagreeing with your position. I apologise if you’re offended by me referring to your position as “libertarian”, if it’s not correct, then I take it back. It was just to highlight the difference between religious fundamentalists and libertarians. You’re against the ban, just like Muslim fundamentalists are against the ban (not only, but it’s them who turned this into an ideological battle), but it seems clear you oppose it with a different motivation and a different mindset, right? That’s all I meant, and I do find it puzzling, because there couldn’t be two more different mindset than those.

I agree with you the state is not some supernatural entity but a representative of all citizens, exactly, now where did I give the impression I consider it differently? Didn’t the majority of French representatives approve this law, didn’t the majority of citizens suppor it, including - funnily enough, or maybe not! - the majority of French Muslim women? That doesn’t seem to me to be a case of authoritiarian imposition by some “state” that represents an elite.

But anyway. I do think that the ideal situation would be one where problems of religious identity, separation and conflict do not even arise at all. IF they arise, solutions have to be compromises. I read the report of the commission and it seems to me there are many specific, practical problems raised not by the Islamic veil itself but the demands of separation (exemption from classes, for instance) it often entails. I don’t think it’s fair to allow those demands to be accepted. It’s not fair to the class, and to the principles state education is based on.

Private religious schools are allowed. That’s what I meant with “if it’s allowed” - as long as religious schools comply with certain basic standards, they can set whatever rules they like in their own environment. So can the “state” - ie. public schools funded by all taxpayers.

I do not see this ban as a magic solution, I didn’t write or imply that, so I don’t know what makes you assume that. It is targeted at schools, and that’s where it will act. France can’t prevent parents to force marriage on their girls or bring them up in a restrictive environment. It can prevent these parents, when they choose state education, force their girls to wear an Islamic veil, be separated in certain activities, be exempted from certain classes, etc.

This measure seems to be welcome by a good size in the Islamic community, as not everyone is so strict on the Islamic veil. I also think the motivations of groups like Ni Putes Ni Soumises or SOS Racisme are very sensible.

That’s my idea. Separation of church and state is not my invention, and it may work differently elsewhere, but each country chooses its founding principles. Secularism does not equal fanatical secularism, not in my view. Fanatical secularism would be a ban on religion per se or heavy interference in religious matters, in religious environments. Secularism means the state preserves its neutral grounds.

I did say, “at least, that’s how I see it”, so, agree to disagree, and many apologies for offending your sensibilities with a strong disagreement. I am genuinely puzzled by your position, that’s all. And I do feel strongly about this. I thought if comments were welcome, then disagreements were welcome too. Maybe I was wrong on that one as well.

Thanks anyway for the reply.
Bigot Hunter | 4 years, 9 months ago
Avatar for Bigot Hunter
United States
03/04 2004
10:44 AM

This is a great debate to have on a topic that should never have even come up.  The French government just told the French citizens that they are not allowed to wear “religious symbols” in public schools.  And while some people may not see a problem with that, I do.  Because no “religion” is a religion as well.  One person believes in a God (or more, or Allah, or whatever) and one does not (atheist).  Both are religious beliefs.

The government is supposed to represent the people.  If the people believe in a higher power(s) then the government should not step in and constrict their freedoms on expression.  This is called freedom of religion.  This, of course, is assuming that said expressions do not impinge on another’s physical lifespan.  I think we can all agree that there are some absolute wrongs (even if you aren’t “religious") like murder etc.  In the context of this new law, I would say that Chirac is pushing his religion (secularism) on Jews and Muslims and somehow is trying to take a “neutral” stance.  Not only is that preposterous, but it is wrong.  Religion is belief, plain and simple.  Chirac believes one thing (whatever that is) and Jews and Muslims and Christians all have their own beliefs.  But for the French government to mandate that religious heritages must be left behind for any reason is ridiculous.

Head scarfs.  You are telling me that wearing a piece of cloth around my head (for reasons you don’t yet know) is dangerous to society?  Or how about wearing a small knitted piece of material on the crown of my skull so that my head is not uncovered?  How exactly does that impinge on “society?” The Jews, Muslims, and Christians ARE part of French society.  Why is Chirac insistent on suppressing their religious beliefs?  It is simply outrageous.

And what about the ever-celebrated idea of DIVERSITY.  Apparently French school children will just have to all look the same.  No head scarfs, no yarmulkes.  The next step is to make them all wear the same color uniform.  Where do you draw the line?  Why aren’t Jews, Christians, Muslims, and atheist all allowed to express themselves?  On top of that, the head scarfs and yarmulkes are traditions in those cultures… so by telling little boys and girls that they are not allowed to wear them is the same as saying that they are second class citizens… I mean, what were the atheists forced to give up by the state… oh wait, nothing!  If you are atheist and have no heritage and no culture except modern culture then you are fine.  If you hold no strong beliefs… beliefs that you want to express (especially in such harmless ways)… then you have no problems.  The only strong beliefs that you are allowed to express are those that agree with the State.  Socialism at its finest.

What a bunch of crap.

I am waiting with baited breath to see what this law accomplishes.
pepe | 4 years, 9 months ago
Avatar for pepe
Italy
03/05 2004
08:55 AM

This is about much more relevant things than the veil. And one can argue about the theory of state, church, freedom of religion, etc. til you’re blue in the face, but it would be more interesting to hear a rebuttal of the practical arguments and points raised in the Commission report:

http://www.fil-info-france.com/actualites-monde/rapport-stasi-commission-laicite.htm

There are instances mentioned in the report, and brought up by teachers, about girls asking to be exempted from being interrogated by male teachers, from going to the gym, or from taking certain classes.

If they (or better, the parents, since we’re talking minors), say that is according to their religious beliefs, well, what do you do? file it under “religious freedom” and just accept you have to make special allowances for daughters of strict Islamic parents? in state schools?

Is that really freedom, or yielding to pressures of fundamentalists?
Comment page 1 / 1 pages |

Trackbacks

Post title: Dissident Frogman and Al-Qaeda Agree ♠ Dissident Frogman et Al-Qaeda En Accord

Date: 24th February, 2004

Trackback received from : Empty Days United States
Brainwashed
Actually, this points to another subject I've long been wondering about: how come it's such an "obvious" fact in our heads that we are somehow supposed to "liberate" all those poor women from wearing the goddam burka;Go read it all...
Sent from 64.239.11.193 on March 04, 2004
Trackback received from : Le blog de Polyscopique Germany
Lectures
Here are some interesting reads: Victor Davis Hanson puts back preemption, unilateralism and multilateralism in historical context.Radley Balko explains how a crusade against obesity in the United States is turning into a crusade against personal respo...Go read it all...
Sent from 217.160.226.3 on February 27, 2004
Trackback received from : Winds of Change.NET United States
Point-Counterpoint: French Headscarf Ban
Sir Banagor argues in favour. The Dissident Frogman argues against. Read and decide.Go read it all...
Sent from 63.247.72.82 on February 27, 2004