French burqa ban goes into force on monday

[posts from hell]

PFH, if you address me on the boards, I may respond. But keep in mind you complained just two days ago about me disagreeing with you. So, mods, please note this.

I was being quiet till you came out all offensive again, and I had to say something.

 

[TheOracle]

There is no lowball cheapshot. I mentioned deaf because yes, this is a deaf forum. If I were on a Jewish forum, I'd use Jewish history as an example. It's called "relating".

I could also add:

Christians
Hindus
Mexicans
Chinese
Japanese
Irish
Italian
Native Americans
Homosexuals
Women
Those with other legal disabilities - epilepsy, blindness, Down syndrome, and so forth

and any other group that has suffered persecution by either American or French governments by positive discriminatory law.

 

[TheOracle]

I was being quiet till you came out all offensive again, and I had to say something.

You take offense to everything I say. You find me offensive. I don't know what to tell you except maybe you should ignore me if it is so?

This is a Current Events board. It usually slides into debate and that's fine. This law - and problems with it - is about French government. The article the OP posted was about a French law. When we put it in an American perspective, then it becomes about American government. Many people in this thread did that because they were relating.

I'm not a Doctor of Philosophy. I studied polisci as an undergrad. I taught a few Civics courses. I worked on campaigns and in the party for two years. No expert here! But any first year Political Theory 101 or Comparative Governments 101 student would see what I'm saying. Anyone who studied the American or French revolution in college should see my points.

Heck, dare I say that ANYONE can see what I'm saying, provided they don't have some preconceived notion that I only serve to irritate.

I'm not saying that the deaf struggle is like the Muslim or Jewish one, or that all religious struggles are the same, or like being a Druze is like being a homosexual in America.

I'm saying that all these groups are entitled to the same basic rights of man as the majority group. That's it. Reba's comment (which I think she meant as a little tongue in cheek) violates that principle. I asked how she would feel if another group's right to liberty was violated? And if is, is it fair to tell them to leave?

 

[StSapphire]

I could also add:

Christians
Hindus
Mexicans
Chinese
Japanese
Irish
Italian
Native Americans
Homosexuals
Women
Those with other legal disabilities - epilepsy, blindness, Down syndrome, and so forth

and any other group that has suffered persecution by either American or French governments by positive discriminatory law.

Not making any sort of comment on the actual discussion happening here, but while you've listed legally protected classes, "religion" is distinct from all of the others listed because it's something that you choose. You can be born a Deaf Italian Homosexual Woman. You're not born Christian or Muslim or Jewish (I understand that there's an "ethnically Jewish" classification, but that has nothing to do with religious beliefs). You're born to Christian or Muslim or Jewish parents, who raise you to be Christian, Muslim or Jewish. That seems to be a salient point.

 

[posts from hell]

Not making any sort of comment on the actual discussion happening here, but while you've listed legally protected classes, "religion" is distinct from all of the others listed because it's something that you choose. You can be born a Deaf Italian Homosexual Woman. You're not born Christian or Muslim or Jewish (I understand that there's an "ethnically Jewish" classification, but that has nothing to do with religious beliefs). You're born to Christian or Muslim or Jewish parents, who raise you to be Christian, Muslim or Jewish. That seems to be a salient point.

That.

 

[TheOracle]

Not making any sort of comment on the actual discussion happening here, but while you've listed legally protected classes, "religion" is distinct from all of the others listed because it's something that you choose. You can be born a Deaf Italian Homosexual Woman. You're not born Christian or Muslim or Jewish (I understand that there's an "ethnically Jewish" classification, but that has nothing to do with religious beliefs). You're born to Christian or Muslim or Jewish parents, who raise you to be Christian, Muslim or Jewish. That seems to be a salient point.

and yet both constitutions protect the liberties of all noted.

by the way, not that it's a sticky point, but:
jews are born jews or convert.
muslims are born muslim or convert. *edit- most muslims believe that all are born so, but it is a parent who may make a child Jew or Buddhist or something else. people do "convert" to Islam, though.
christians make a decision to follow.

all of these religious groups would tell you that they feel there is no choice involved. you are what you are if you're religious.

If I tell you that you are no longer allowed to practice Catholicism, does this mean you automatically stop believing in God? Do you stop praying in private? Do you marry people of other faiths now? Of course not.

a homosexual can restrict himself from being in a same sex relationship. this is not a reasonable request, however. a homosexual can "stay in the closet" and suffer psychological consequences. that is hardly exercising one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

a deaf person can abandon sign and use oral only. some deaf could use CI to gain access to sound. again, this request would subjugate the deaf (and some on here equate it to child abuse).

I'm just saying - Reba was talking about liberty. Perhaps if it weren't for those who came here seeking religious freedom, we would have not been so influenced by the Declaration of the Rights of Man. I was just noting that liberty is universal. This is why the West does not see non-democratic governments as legitimate equals.

 

[TheOracle]

and yet both constitutions protect the liberties of all noted.

that

and

I'm just saying - Reba was talking about liberty

that.

Again, this discussion has been about French and American law. While Reba didn't say the word liberty, the discussion we were having on this board is about the principles of Western law - governments that exist to protect liberties. It's not about who is born into what and what choices you have to change (even if they make you unhappy).

It's about the idea that some rights are universal.

 

[TheOracle]

YouTube - rebirth

There's something on YouTube for everyone...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIq7S71AYcQ]YouTube - The West Wing - Josh's Roosevelt Quote[/ame]

(I couldn't resist. Total <head/smack> when I saw that.)

 

[StSapphire]

and yet both constitutions protect the liberties of all noted.

Right, that's why I said I wasn't responding to the actual main argument. Just pointing out that, while legally being classified as a "protected class" from discrimination, there are still important differences.

by the way, not that it's a sticky point, but:
jews are born jews or convert.
muslims are born muslim or convert.
christians make a decision to follow.

all of these religious groups would tell you that they feel there is no choice involved. you are what you are if you're religious.

I'm sure they do claim that. That doesn't make it right.

If two Jewish people have a child and put it up for adoption and it is raised by non-religious parents, that child was never Jewish other than possibly genetically (which has nothing to do with religion, which is the protected class).

If two Muslim people have a child and put it up for adoption and it is raised by non-religious parents, that child was never Muslim other than possibly genetically (which has nothing to do with religion, which is the protected class).

The Jewish and Muslim religious leaders may claim otherwise, simply because it is in their best interests to claim that, to increase the count of their followers. There is nothing genetic about religious beliefs that are taught to someone during their growth. (Of course, you may feel overwhelmingly that your religion is the only one you could believe in. Look into twins studies - they have identical parents and identical genes, but if raised by parents of different faiths, they a more likely to have different religious beliefs.)

 

[TheOracle]

oh, and since I'm not rude:

JOSH Let me tell you what Theodore Roosevelt said.

JOEY Okay.

JOEY [KENNY] What do I care what Theodore Roosevelt says?

JOSH Because the Republicans are going to bring it up.

JOEY [KENNY] The Republicans aren’t going to put it on the table.

JOSH He said, "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. For we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."

KENNY What kind of boarding house?

JOSH Polyglot. It means... ah... having knowledge of or speaking...

JOEY [KENNY] I know what ‘polyglot’ means. JOSH They why did you ask me?

JOEY [indicating Kenny] He asked you!

JOSH My point is...

 

[Beowulf]

Sigh. I get the distinct impression that we are moving to having closed captioning and interpreting services being a privilege, not a right. Oh well.

 

[Jiro]

I'm not a Doctor of Philosophy.

me either

I studied polisci as an undergrad.

same.

I taught a few Civics courses.

cool.

I worked on campaigns and in the party for two years.

cool. Democrat?

No expert here!

same but I'm well-versed with the laws to its very language and I am very capable of making a distinctive difference while putting bias aside.

But any first year Political Theory 101 or Comparative Governments 101 student would see what I'm saying. Anyone who studied the American or French revolution in college should see my points.

I don't know about you but I think any first year Political Theory 101 or Comparative Governments 101 students who see your points are the one who are sleeping in classes. why? cuz see above - I took polisci course

 

[TheOracle]

Right, that's why I said I wasn't responding to the actual main argument. Just pointing out that, while legally being classified as a "protected class" from discrimination, there are still important differences.

I didn't say there weren't differences. Scroll up. I'm just saying you can't pick and choose which class of people you want to protect.

I'm sure they do claim that. That doesn't make it right.

I'm not sure if you mean morally right, factually correct, or whatever, but anyway.

If two Jewish people have a child and put it up for adoption and it is raised by non-religious parents, that child was never Jewish other than possibly genetically (which has nothing to do with religion, which is the protected class).

Ethnically and by Jewish law - only mitochondrial DNA counts here. They could still emigrate to Israel, join a synagogue, be an Orthodox rabbi...Jewish women giving children up for adoption to non-Jews is rare, though.

If two Muslim people have a child and put it up for adoption and it is raised by non-religious parents, that child was never Muslim other than possibly genetically (which has nothing to do with religion, which is the protected class).

Protected classes aren't classes that are given more rights. They're just entitled to the same rights. Everyone is in a protected class.

The Jewish and Muslim religious leaders may claim otherwise, simply because it is in their best interests to claim that, to increase the count of their followers.

All religions get a say as to who and who does not belong! If you are a non-practicing Jew, you're not a follower of Judaism. You're just Jewish.

 

[Jiro]

I'm saying that all these groups are entitled to the same basic rights of man as the majority group.

that's what French government is doing..... protecting Muslim women's rights and children's rights to same freedom, liberty, and rights as the majority group.

Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa is punishable by a year in prison and a 30,000 euro fine. Forcing a minor to do the same thing is punishable by two years in prison and 60,000 euro.

The government has called this coercion "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil."

 

[TheOracle]

Sigh. I get the distinct impression that we are moving to having closed captioning and interpreting services being a privilege, not a right. Oh well.

In general or AD? I posted that because

1) It's a scene from my favorite show ever in which Josh brings up a quote about "English-only" ed, which the President didn't support -- but was a campaign issue for Republicans.

2) PFH posted a video in sign that he knew I couldn't understand, so it was a little bit of a joke.

Also, I added text!

 

[TheOracle]

cool. Democrat?

Wouldn't know how to operate otherwise.

same but I'm well-versed with the laws to its very language and I am very capable of making a distinctive difference while putting bias aside.

That's good.

I don't know about you but I think any first year Political Theory 101 or Comparative Governments 101 students who see your points are the one who are sleeping in classes. why? cuz see above - I took polisci course

It's a good thing I outlined some of the principles of natural rights! I'm sorry you didn't retain knowledge from your political science degree.

 

[TheOracle]

that's what French government is doing..... protecting Muslim women's rights and children's rights to same freedom, liberty, and rights as the majority group.

But Muslim women aren't complaining. They don't feel their rights are being infringed upon. They feel that prohibiting the burqa or niqab IS restricting rights. They CHOOSE to practice this way.

Remember, they wanted to ban the hijab in public places and that was dropped. I'm not going to be surprised if it comes up later.

If you want to go and protect rights and legislate religions, well, you'd better start legislating that woman must wear pants a certain number of days, or legislate that the Orthodox MUST allow female rabbis and homosexual rabbis...and so forth and so on...oh, we should also forbid the practice of letting Catholic priests refuse inter-religious and homosexual marriages in the Church...mandate that the LDS church allow black church officials...prohibit women from being stay at home moms...good grief. The Muslim community in France is huge. This is FRANCE! No one is gonna wear a niqab if she doesn't want to.


*edit - The LDS comment was about past practices, but no government ever ordered for them to change.

 

[Jiro]

It's a good thing I outlined some of the principles of natural rights! I'm sorry you didn't retain knowledge from your political science degree.

that's because I didn't major in political science, silly. It's useless.

 

[Jiro]

But Muslim women aren't complaining. They don't feel their rights are being infringed upon. They feel that prohibiting the burqa or niqab IS restricting rights. They CHOOSE to practice this way.

are you sure about that?

what about for Muslim women who felt their rights were being infringed upon by their male family members? and that's in France....

 

[StSapphire]

I didn't say there weren't differences. Scroll up. I'm just saying you can't pick and choose which class of people you want to protect.

No, no. I specifically avoided commenting on the original issue because I've not given it enough thought to have a coherent opinion on the issue. I was merely pointing out why I could see people having an issue with you conflating "religion" with "other, non-chosen protected classes". That's all.

I'm not sure if you mean morally right, factually correct, or whatever, but anyway.

Factually correct. Declaration of a concept by a group doesn't alter factual information. It is a fact that someone is deaf, hard of hearing or hearing at birth. It is a fact that someone is male or female at birth. (Well, okay, both of these can be vague, but you understand what I'm trying to say, I assume.)

It is not a fact that a child has a religion at birth. Religion is dictated by what you believe. If you believe the precepts of the Christian religion, then you're a Christian. If you believe the precepts of the Islamic religion, then you're a Muslim. A child "believes" nothing at birth, because the synaptic connections that represent "faith" or "belief" or even "understanding" or "symbolic concepts" simply don't exist yet.

Ethnically and by Jewish law - only mitochondrial DNA counts here. They could still emigrate to Israel, join a synagogue, be an Orthodox rabbi...Jewish women giving children up for adoption to non-Jews is rare, though.

Protected classes aren't classes that are given more rights. They're just entitled to the same rights. Everyone is in a protected class.

All religions get a say as to who and who does not belong! If you are a non-practicing Jew, you're not a follower of Judaism. You're just Jewish.

Jewish law doesn't affect physical reality, and thus has no applicability here. My point was merely that religious beliefs are not a "part" of anyone. It is a personal choice.

Religions are allowed to say who they don't want, but using the legal definition, a person is allowed to claim they are whatever religion they want.

Your last paragraph also implicitly conflates "religious beliefs" with "genetic race/ethnicity", which does little but make the entire discussion more confusing. (That may likely have been unintentional, since members of the Jewish faith are far more apt to do that than members of any other faith, for some reason.)