French burqa ban goes into force on monday

[Steinhauer]

The Muslim women weren't doing anything illegal. They were French citizens practicing their own religion and harming no one.

The Hispanics in question had high numbers of immigrants who potentially broke immigration law.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious error in his logic (and I am sure he still won't understand).

 

[Jiro]

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.



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.



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.)

I couldn't have said any better.

and also - whatever the religion they chose to follow, they must also abide by the country's law. and they are free to live in any country that is compatible with their religious belief. that's the full extent of our laws and Constitution.

They cannot expect other country to bend over and respect it. That's not how it works.

 

[TheOracle]

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

I thought you said you "studied" it in university. Okay. Cause I took human biology, but I didn't "study" it. You slept in polisci. I Googled in human bio. Fair enough!

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....

What rights? If the men in France break laws, the women have recourse. Did you post a law that prohibits forcing a woman to wear a niqab? I support that.

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.

:ty for clarification

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.)

Okay, but...if Jews get to say who is a Jew, who are you to say who is not a Jew? I mean, I'm talking about Jewish law. There is a thing that is called Jewish law that largely governs the way Jewish people live. It exists and is practiced. It is a fact. It doesn't mean that all Jewish law is factually true...I was just pointing out that I can be a non practicing Jew and still Jewish...for reasons explained in a moment...

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.

Religion is dictated by what you believe or what you practice. Not all theistic religions require a belief in God. Judaism does not require a belief in God. It is possible to be religious and ascribe to a religion without believing in certain tenants, even if they think you're an infidel. Judaism is probably the most forgiving on this. However, a Christian would never call me a Christian. I don't believe in Jesus. The religious body does have a say in "who" belongs to their religion. It's kind of an agreement between you and that religion and what you are comfortable with.

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.

- Absolutely. This is why most religions have ceremonies like a bar mitzvah, a confirmation, declaration of adulthood, etc. I was just pointing out that you can be born into a Muslim or Jewish family and also be born into an ethnicity.

on to the how you can be a non practicing Jew and still a member of an ethnic group...

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.)

Oh no. Jews are the least likely to say that they are a genetic race. They will say that they are a people, which is another way of saying ethnic group. While many Jews do share DNA markers because of lack of interfaith marriages until modern times, Jews do NOT call themselves a race. That area is for Mengele, eugenicists, the KKK, and Nazis.

Ethnic group is not = race.

Here's a wiki quote which sums it up pretty well:

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2] ,[3] "...in general it is a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith".[4]

"Endogamy" is why many Jews share common genetic markers. (Cohen gene and breast cancer gene in some Ashkenazim women)​

I was just posting that so you knew I was making a clear difference between the two. Both Jews and Muslims fall in that category of "ethnic" group...with some pockets of Middle Eastern Muslims sharing the same unique genetic markers as their Jewish counterparts. Yet the cultural and ethnic differences between the two groups are huge!

All that being said, I just want to stress that Jews are not a race. (I don't even believe in the concept of race anyway, but that's another thread!) When I joked about "mitochondrial DNA", it was because of Jewish law - a Jewish child is born only to a Jewish mother. (Since motherhood was the only definite science proving parentage thousands of years ago, that's just how it went. Clans were paternal.)

 

[KristinaB]

 

[TheOracle]

I couldn't have said any better.

and also - whatever the religion they chose to follow, they must also abide by the country's law. and they are free to live in any country that is compatible with their religious belief. that's the full extent of our laws and Constitution.

They cannot expect other country to bend over and respect it. That's not how it works.

Yes. For example, Judaism says that we are to live and abide by the law of the land. (Except in super minor circumstances, like murder and such, but anyway.) I don't know how other religions do this, but I do remember Jesus saying to give to Cesar what is Cesar's. But that is NOT the full extent of our laws and Constitution as you claim.

Positive discrimination against religious groups is unconstitutional in both France and America. France isn't bending over backwards for Muslim women.

 

[TheOracle]

Come join us!

 

[Jiro]

Yes. For example, Judaism says that we are to live and abide by the law of the land. (Except in super minor circumstances, like murder and such, but anyway.) I don't know how other religions do this, but I do remember Jesus saying to give to Cesar what is Cesar's. But that is NOT the full extent of our laws and Constitution as you claim.

Positive discrimination against religious groups is unconstitutional in both France and America. France isn't bending over backwards for Muslim women.

because we have separation of church and state

 

[Jiro]

What rights?

what rights? What do you mean "what rights"? You should know because you said it in previous post - "...all these groups are entitled to the same basic rights of man as the majority group."

If the men in France break laws, the women have recourse. Did you post a law that prohibits forcing a woman to wear a niqab? I support that.

there you go. case closed.

 

[TheOracle]

because we have separation of church and state

And protection from religious persecution.

Just like France!

 

[Jiro]

And protection from religious persecution.

Just like France!

there you go. I'm glad you understand why French passed this law and you support it

 

[TheOracle]

what rights? What do you mean "what rights"? You should know because you said it in previous post - "...all these groups are entitled to the same basic rights of man as the majority group."

You asked about the rights of a woman in a private home, right? I think? That's why I asked you to specify what you mean.

there you go. case closed.

Case closed because what? I support a law on a ban that forces a woman to wear a garment for religious purposes in a nation that is secular and does not support or perpetuate any religion?

(Although I kind of feel like the ban on children is a little odd, since parents tend to have some control over the religious practices of children when they are minors, but I'm not in France.)

 

[TheOracle]

there you go. I'm glad you understand why French passed this law and you support it

Are you flaming?

Let's be clear, readers. I never said I supported the burqa ban.

 

[StSapphire]

for clarification

No problem.

Okay, but...if Jews get to say who is a Jew, who are you to say who is not a Jew? I mean, I'm talking about Jewish law. There is a thing that is called Jewish law that largely governs the way Jewish people live. It exists and is practiced. It is a fact. It doesn't mean that all Jewish law is factually true...I was just pointing out that I can be a non practicing Jew and still Jewish...for reasons explained in a moment...

This is why I don't like using "Jew" to mean either "an active, self-identifying adherent of a religious group" OR "a member of the ethnic group of historically Jewish people". I'm never certain which term you're referring to.

In terms of religious identification, I disagree that Jewish leaders get to say who is and isn't religiously Jewish. Only an individual can self-identify themselves as members of a specific religion. If you meant that "ethnically" then you're no longer talking about religion, so the point is moot.

Religion is dictated by what you believe or what you practice. Not all theistic religions require a belief in God. Judaism does not require a belief in God. It is possible to be religious and ascribe to a religion without believing in certain tenants, even if they think you're an infidel. Judaism is probably the most forgiving on this. However, a Christian would never call me a Christian. I don't believe in Jesus. The religious body does have a say in "who" belongs to their religion. It's kind of an agreement between you and that religion and what you are comfortable with.

Emphasis mine added. You appear to have contradicted yourself. Your definition first says that you can believe whatever you want and essentially call yourself whatever you want, even if the creators of the religion disagree. I agree with that assessment.

Then you say that they still get a say in "who belongs". The closest that this can come is by saying that a religion may tell someone that they are not welcome to their place of worship. But this doesn't prevent someone from still self-identifying as a member of that religion, even if the leaders of that religion reject them.

- Absolutely. This is why most religions have ceremonies like a bar mitzvah, a confirmation, declaration of adulthood, etc. I was just pointing out that you can be born into a Muslim or Jewish family and also be born into an ethnicity.

[...]

Oh no. Jews are the least likely to say that they are a genetic race. They will say that they are a people, which is another way of saying ethnic group. While many Jews do share DNA markers because of lack of interfaith marriages until modern times, Jews do NOT call themselves a race. That area is for Mengele, eugenicists, the KKK, and Nazis.

Ethnic group is not = race.

I was just posting that so you knew I was making a clear difference between the two. Both Jews and Muslims fall in that category of "ethnic" group...with some pockets of Middle Eastern Muslims sharing the same unique genetic markers as their Jewish counterparts. Yet the cultural and ethnic differences between the two groups are huge!

All that being said, I just want to stress that Jews are not a race. (I don't even believe in the concept of race anyway, but that's another thread!) When I joked about "mitochondrial DNA", it was because of Jewish law - a Jewish child is born only to a Jewish mother. (Since motherhood was the only definite science proving parentage thousands of years ago, that's just how it went. Clans were paternal.)

Okay, I was mostly conflating "race" and "ethnicity" simply due to ignorance of the subject, then. Sorry. It sounds like ethnicity in this case is a product combining self-identification lightly with parental heritage, maybe? Would you say that someone who is a convert to Islam becomes ethnically Muslim, if they choose to self-identify that way, or does it require parental inheritance?

If the former is true (ie you can self-identify and be considered "ethnically" Muslim) then ethnicity is still fully a choice. If the latter is true (ie there's some sort of genetic component) then it's still at least somewhat tied in with the generic "concept" of race, though with more of a cultural influence than just genetics.

(Side note: This reminds me of some other topic here recently about deafness and ethnicity or something of the sort. Terminology debates generally seem stupid to me because it always seems as though arguments over the usage of specific terminology is little more than an excuse to smuggle in a hidden definition. When possible, I much prefer an ostensive definition of confusing or debated terms.)

[edit] Saw another post to respond to:

(Although I kind of feel like the ban on children is a little odd, since parents tend to have some control over the religious practices of children when they are minors, but I'm not in France.)

Maybe they finally realized that children should have protection from the draconian practices of their parents' religion?

 

[Jiro]

You asked about the rights of a woman in a private home, right? I think? That's why I asked you to specify what you mean.

no I didn't say anything about private home. I said nothing selective of any such. I see that you're having trouble following the issue and being consistent with your view. Let me clarify for you by reposting French law -

The French Constitutional Council said the law did not impose disproportionate punishments or prevent the free exercise of religion in a place of worship, finding therefore that "the law conforms to the Constitution."

"Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.

Lawmakers have also cited security reasons for forbidding people from covering their faces in public.

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."

Case closed because what? I support a law on a ban that forces a woman to wear a garment for religious purposes in a nation that is secular and does not support or perpetuate any religion?

(Although I kind of feel like the ban on children is a little odd, since parents tend to have some control over the religious practices of children when they are minors, but I'm not in France.)

Each country has its own Constitution and laws based on their belief. Anything on its land must abide by it. If you don't like it, feel free to find a country that is compatible with your belief. This is not an xenophobic nor homophobic nor Islamophobic nor ---phobic attitude. Get it in your head.

However.... by your logic on this stance, I take it that you're ok with adult marrying pre-teen child or incense or honor killing.... because it's their religious belief and you should butt out.

 

[StSapphire]

this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place ... Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa is punishable by a year in prison...

The confusion is that the law mentions someone being forced to wear it, but goes on to either explicitly or implicitly claim that anyone wearing one is presumed to have been forced to be wearing it.

 

[Jiro]

The confusion is that the law mentions someone being forced to wear it, but goes on to either explicitly or implicitly claim that anyone wearing one is presumed to have been forced to be wearing it.

hence "controversial"

but so far.... I haven't heard any arrest regarding it.

 

[TheOracle]

Okay, but...if Jews get to say who is a Jew, who are you to say who is not a Jew? I mean, I'm talking about Jewish law. There is a thing that is called Jewish law that largely governs the way Jewish people live. It exists and is practiced. It is a fact. It doesn't mean that all Jewish law is factually true...I was just pointing out that I can be a non practicing Jew and still Jewish...for reasons explained in a moment...

This is why I don't like using "Jew" to mean either "an active, self-identifying adherent of a religious group" OR "a member of the ethnic group of historically Jewish people". I'm never certain which term you're referring to.

But that's how it is. I can't help semantics. A Jew can be a religious Jew, an ethnic Jew, an Israeli Jew, an atheist Jew, a Reform Jew...Jews are an ethnic group, with Israelis being a separate, though related, ethnic group.

In terms of religious identification, I disagree that Jewish leaders get to say who is and isn't religiously Jewish. Only an individual can self-identify themselves as members of a specific religion. If you meant that "ethnically" then you're no longer talking about religion, so the point is moot.

Jewish leaders do have a say in who is called Jewish. It wouldn't be a religion otherwise.

I can't just go and say I'm Catholic.

You can bar someone from being in your religion, but you can't force someone to be in your religion.

Jews can't tell you who is ethnically Jewish. That's a sociological term...Jews call themselves a people. They are. Political scientists, historians, and sociologists all over the world agree.

Emphasis mine added. You appear to have contradicted yourself. Your definition first says that you can believe whatever you want and essentially call yourself whatever you want, even if the creators of the religion disagree. I agree with that assessment.

I did NOT contradict myself. The religious body DOES have a say. But look at Catholicism and Protestantism. Are both forms of Christianity? Yes. Is a Lutheran a Catholic? No.

I NEVER said I can call myself whatever I want to. I can't call myself a Christian.

I'm a Jewish person who belongs to the Conservative movement. I'm not Orthodox. The Orthodox don't have a say in what I do. The Orthodox can't bar me from teaching men about Torah. The Orthodox can't prohibit me from marrying a woman in a synagogue. I'm still Jewish, though.

Then you say that they still get a say in "who belongs". The closest that this can come is by saying that a religion may tell someone that they are not welcome to their place of worship. But this doesn't prevent someone from still self-identifying as a member of that religion, even if the leaders of that religion reject them.

Look at the definition of religion. If you ascribe to the tenets of or practice religion, you can be considered religious. Plenty of religious people are secretly atheist. Plenty of Catholic homosexuals. But let's be serious. I can SAY I'm a Shi'ite Muslim all I want, but I am not.

Okay, I was mostly conflating "race" and "ethnicity" simply due to ignorance of the subject, then. Sorry. It sounds like ethnicity in this case is a product combining self-identification lightly with parental heritage, maybe? Would you say that someone who is a convert to Islam becomes ethnically Muslim, if they choose to self-identify that way, or does it require parental inheritance?

Yeah...it's hard for you to be a practicing Muslim if you didn't become a member of that ethnic group. I guess you could say that you belong to a cultural group...but that causes issues of semantics which I can get into later.

If the former is true (ie you can self-identify and be considered "ethnically" Muslim) then ethnicity is still fully a choice. If the latter is true (ie there's some sort of genetic component) then it's still at least somewhat tied in with the generic "concept" of race, though with more of a cultural influence than just genetics.

They are not mutually exclusive. Of course there is a genetic/heritage/biological/something component to being Muslim...but that doesn't mean Muslims or Jews are a race. As you very well know, you can immigrate to the U.S. and be Americanized.

Maybe they finally realized that children should have protection from the draconian practices of their parents' religion?

Can you please refrain from insults to a religion?

 

[posts from hell]

lol now all the bad quoting and messy writing is just too to read.

That's how bad debating is. make sure the other party that is receiving the information is all stumped and forced into decided on "who looks like they know their shit (basically who makes the best word salad.)"

 

[StSapphire]

But that's how it is. I can't help semantics. A Jew can be a religious Jew, an ethnic Jew, an Israeli Jew, an atheist Jew, a Reform Jew...Jews are an ethnic group, with Israelis being a separate, though related, ethnic group.

I'll refrain from much further comments on ethnicity because I'm not confident enough in my own opinions to have anything worthwhile to say on the subject.

Jewish leaders do have a say in who is called Jewish. It wouldn't be a religion otherwise.

I can't just go and say I'm Catholic.

You can bar someone from being in your religion, but you can't force someone to be in your religion.

I did NOT contradict myself. The religious body DOES have a say. But look at Catholicism and Protestantism. Are both forms of Christianity? Yes. Is a Lutheran a Catholic? No.

I NEVER said I can call myself whatever I want to. I can't call myself a Christian.

What? Yes you can. People do it all the time. Religion is a personal thing. Now, if you don't believe in Jesus or God and decide to call yourself a Christian, most people will disagree with you on the basis that the general definition of "Christian" include belief in some of these basic concepts.

But, to move to Catholicism - the Roman Catholic Church formally defines all doctrines that define "Catholicism". That's fine, and they're allowed to do that. Guess what? I'd be willing to bet that 90% of their members don't believe the entirety of that. According to the church, if you don't believe it, you're not a Catholic. These people still call themselves Catholics. You can either claim that they're not "true Catholics" (and many hardliners do) or claim that self-identification is a valid form of defining someone's religion. I choose the latter, since "religion" is just a very simple way of naming a whole package of beliefs in a particular type of thing.

Religious authorities can claim ownership over the definition of what their religion is considered, but that doesn't mean they're able to logically remove that label from anyone they disagree with. They're simply forced to say "Oh, that's a different sect" or something else of the sort.

I'm a Jewish person who belongs to the Conservative movement. I'm not Orthodox. The Orthodox don't have a say in what I do. The Orthodox can't bar me from teaching men about Torah. The Orthodox can't prohibit me from marrying a woman in a synagogue. I'm still Jewish, though.

Well, they might be able to do the latter, unless you open your own new synagogue that's less restrictive.

Look at the definition of religion. If you ascribe to the tenets of or practice religion, you can be considered religious. Plenty of religious people are secretly atheist. Plenty of Catholic homosexuals. But let's be serious. I can SAY I'm a Shi'ite Muslim all I want, but I am not.

Because you choose not to be. A Catholic who self-identifies as a Catholic but doesn't think there is a God may be very confused, but the act of self-identifying as a Catholic simply means that's the title he's given to the collection of beliefs about existence.

Can you please refrain from insults to a religion?

I wasn't insulting a religion. I might have been insulting all of them as a whole.

lol now all the bad quoting and messy writing is just too to read.

That's how bad debating is. make sure the other party that is receiving the information is all stumped and forced into decided on "who looks like they know their shit (basically who makes the best word salad.)"

Ew, salad is gross. I prefer to make the best word spaghetti! That having been said, IANAE (at anything having been discussed here).

 

[TheOracle]

lol now all the bad quoting and messy writing is just too to read.

That's how bad debating is. make sure the other party that is receiving the information is all stumped and forced into decided on "who looks like they know their shit (basically who makes the best word salad.)"

:roll: Like you've never made a mistake. Matt, why don't you leave this thread if you have nothing productive to say? So far I've noted three snarky comments from you to me...