Chiraq bans Muslim head scarves in State Schools

I am not jesting.
I say that the comparison between religions and nazism is preposterous.
I do not deny that many crimes have been committed in the name of religion: from the crusades, to the Inquisition, to the killing of the hugonottes (sp?), to the latest Balkan wars, to 9/11, to the invasion of Iraq, to female circumcision, to the forbidding of a 13 year old rape victim to have an abortion.
This does not mean that religions are intrinsecally evil.
Nazism is intrinsecally evil.

Once again you are putting words into my mouth -- and misrepresenting what I have actually said. Second time I've called that to your attention.

I understand the point you are trying to make -- and I respect it. But you are selling my argument short based more on emotion than reason.

And in order to do so -- you have to alter what I've said.

You stated:

I responded:

RELIGIONS HAVE PROMOTED RACISM; THEY HAVE PROMOTED PREJUDICE; THEY HAVE PROMOTED HATRED; AND THEY SURE AS HELL HAVE PROMOTED WAR.

And most continue, despite all the pretty words and platitudes, to do so to this day.

Or at least the memberships of religions -- just as the memberships of Nazism -- promote all those things.

My point from the beginning was that religions are a net negative for society -- and I think society benefits from containing them in any way possible. The individuals involved can be as free as they want -- put promoting their religions should be discouraged. And head scarfs, crosses, stars of David are fine starting points.

Or at least that is my opinion.

Frank, honestly I think you are confounding religions with churches. Ideological movements with institutions.

Have churches promoted racism, prejudice, hatred and war? Sure.
And I add: they have used religion for that.
But, IMHO, churches and religions are not the same thing.

I think everyone ought to be forced to wear both headscarfs and cowboy hats. Headscarfs make everyone look hot, or at least mysterious, and a cowboy hat is great protection from the sun. Besides remember how cool Clint Eastwood looked while wearing both in the Unforgiven.

I've never understood why female hair must be covered while uncovered male hair, especially beards, must be conspicuously displayed.

Just sexist crap.


Churchs and religions are not the same thing. Um... stockyards and McDonalds are not the same thing either, neither are the whiskey makers and the Bartenders Association nor are the politicians connected in any way with the government.

Give us this day a break from all of those who claim to know the unknown.

Joe

I best just put a bookmark in an watch for a spell.

Frank,

This discussion is about clothing.

I think the point you are trying to make (I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I am wrong) is that wearing a religious symbol (i.e. a cross) is comparable to wearing a nazi swastika.

Emotionally, politically, culturally and historically I think this is preposterous and indefensible.

The Nazi ideaolgy was evil from its core. One of its main beliefs was a systematic genocide.

Wearing a swatstika implies (to most reasonable Americans) that the wearer believes in hatred, racial superiority and perhaps murder and genocide. Reasonable people are offended and perhaps threatened by this symbol.

Wearing a cross implies (to most reasonable Americans) that the wearer identifies herself with a religious or cultural segment of our society. There is no core doctrine of racial superiority or murder implicit in Christianity. Christian groups in America are, in fact, a very diverse group ranging from evangelicals to Quakers. The cross symbol is significant to all of them.

(I could write similar paragraphs for Moslem and Jewish symbols if I had time.)

What I am saying is that within our cultural and historical context, there is no comparison between wearing a cross or star of David or headscarf and wearing a swatstika. The emotional impact of these symbols is completely different and the historical significance is completely different. Comparing the ideology of Jewish and Christian and Moslem religion with the Nazi's is both absurd and offensive.

This whole thing about Religions killing more people than the Nazis is ridiculous and irrelevent.

Americans have killed more people than the Nazi's. So what. I am still proud to display an American flag. The point is what America stands for (vs. what the Nazis stood for).

Current US law makes a correct distinction between symbols that are threatening and those that are not. A swatstika in a school environment is said to create a "hostile environment" and schools can ban it. A cross is not considered threatening and is protected under freedom of expression.

Come on Frank!

The main religions in the US are not anything like the Nazis. Period. This compirson is illogical, reactionary and extreme.

Probably, I would be better off just letting this thing die a natural death, but what the hell....there is still snow on the ground; golf is out of the question; and I've got some free time on my hands.




This discussion started when you took exception to what I had written in response to Phoenix.

Let's examine what I wrote to Phoenix:





Now you have taken that and are now saying that I am asserting that "...American religions are like Nazi's" and that "wearing a religious symbol is like wearing a swastika."

I am doing neither -- and the wording of my comments indicate that I am not doing that. I was simply calling Phoenix's attention to the fact that there already are laws in effect restricting certain areas of "freedom to express beliefs" -- and I expressed a wish to see the ban extended.


There is, indeed, some illogic, reaction, and extemeism going on, eBrown -- but I am not the one indulging in it -- if you get my drift!

Frank- I hear ya, but I think that there is a serious principle involved here. Throwing in swastikas as equivalent to religious symbols is just muddying the waters.

Hang in there Frank. Spring is just around the corner!

Frank,

I disagree and I want to make a very important distinction.

There are no laws restricting any "areas of freedom to express beliefs".

Quite the contrary. Time and again the courts have upheld the rights of unpopular groups to express their beliefs. Even Nazis have the right to march and to publish literature.

In schools and workplaces there are special circumstances because of the need to end threats and a "hostile environment". But even in schools the rights of the students to wear controversial t-shirts, proselytize to their religion, and express unpopular opinions have been upheld by the courts.

Don't confuse the prohibition against "creating a hostile environment" with freedom to express beliefs.

At times these two ideals are in conflict and in thoses cases the courts need to decide which is the most important to society. Even in these cases saying that these decisions are to "restrict expression" is misleading. These decisions are to protect peoples equal access rights. Any restriction of expression is an unfortunate concession to the fact that basic rights sometimes are in conflict. Restriction of expression is not the purpose of these decisions.

But, freedom of expression is the core of our society. To me it is sacred and if you mess with it you will get a strong reaction.

You say you wish to extend the ban on "certain areas of freedom to express beliefs".

I couldn't disagree more.

Whatever!

Having read all this: you certainly know that France has an own law? And that anything what Americans think about something, might be better but in France it's the French constitution, which strictly seperates religion and law.

The incongruous (not a word I use often, and the more I look at it I'm not sure its right) use of swastikas on this page is quite startling.

http://www.luckymojo.com/swastika.html

Steve (as 41oo)- I have known about the swastika's ancient roots. Problem is, to modern man, the swastika in inexorably linked to Nazism.
Maybe in 100 years, the connection will fade, but now, the horrors of the Nazi era, with its hated symbol, is too fresh in people's minds,

To all you folks who are middle aded and older- When you hear "The William Tell Overture", do you think of Rossini, or......................

Phoenix

The swastica wasn't a symbol of the nazi era but the German national enblem during the time of the Nazi regime.

I may be incorrect in this, but i recall that Werner Voss, who was Germany's greatest fighter ace at one time in the Great War (he was jumped by a dozen SEA5 two seaters, and took seven down with him), flew a sky blue plane with a swastika prominently displayed. The same source purported that Voss was a jew.

Maybe i'll do some checking . . . maybe i won't . . . who knows . . .

An immediate check shows that i got some of that wrong . . . he was jumped by seven SE5A's (many years ago, memory fart), two which he shot down, while damaging the other five before they got him.

Back with more.

Swastikas are found in a lot of old Scottish and Norwegian knitting patterns (100 + years old) , and on many old Indian fabrics.

I never quite know what to do when I run into them in the knitting patterns. I've always changed them to something else, but I kind of think I shouldn't.

I am unable to confirm the information i read as an adolescent that there was a swastika on Voss' plane. In fact, all i've been able to find is that there is controversy about how his plane was painted.

Answered by "AskWalterCom": Voss' 'swastika maschine'

I may add that most German pilots had some personal signs on their maschines - from the Prussian flag over their cavalry coat of arms to .. well to the swastica.

This is a question about which I must admit to having a hard time making up my mind. I listened to a news show on NPR yesterday ("To the Point") that had this as its topic. Several Frenchmen were interviewed, including two Muslim leaders there. They didn't take strong stands on the issue, as far as I could tell.

Also interviewed was an American woman who heads an organization that promotes a secular perspective in this country. She didn't have a problem with the scarves except in that they are part of a patriarchal system. The scarves, as I understand it, are to keep men from being distracted by female allure; men, of course, dress however they wish.

Anyhow, the church-state separation in France works a little differently then it does in the US, it seems. Seems to me that a rule forbidding those religious symbols is an example of the state interfering with religious practice. What troubles me more are holiday displays in the schools that promote one religion or another...