France has now declared war on terrorists

[Tigermike 3,057]

The Democrats have all said the U.S. should not be in Iraq, but they would have agreed if the UN had mandated and France had been onboard to help.

France has now declared war on terrorists. See for yourself at the link below.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.a...w=wn_wire_story

Secularism goes mad in France

By Madeleine Bunting

LONDON: A 13-year-old girl is an exemplary pupil in every way; she listens carefully to her teachers, does her homework and is a cheerful member of the class.

But in one respect, her behaviour threatens nothing less than the social peace and national cohesion of the French nation, according to President Jacques Chirac on Wednesday - she insists on wearing a headscarf.

All around her, pupils are wearing the kind of outlandish clothes and hairstyles one would expect of teenagers anywhere in Europe. But there is one garment of clothing that the president has declared challenges the secularity of republican France: the square metre or so of material that covers this girl's hair.

It seems preposterous: how can the clothing of schoolgirls become an issue of such enormous symbolic weight that for 14 years it has been the touchstone of a debate about the French constitution, about what it is to be French and how France should "integrate" its 3.7 million Muslims - the largest Muslim minority in Europe? (Significantly, France talks of integration, not multi-culturalism)

It is not just schoolgirls who will be affected by but also public servants; a juror was even dismissed from service in a jury trial because she was wearing a headscarf. The French state must be seen to be entirely neutral in all its dealings and Chirac on Wednesday endorsed the findings of the official commission and asked parliament to pass a law banning all "ostentatious religious symbols".

From the UK of the Channel one can easily pour scorn on Gallic arrogance. What lies ahead is many more years of confrontation between the French state and Muslims, and a dangerous reinforcement in the Muslim community of the perception of Islamophobia, of exclusion and persecution. One can reasonably ask, as David Drake at Middlesex University in London does after studying this issue, why so much political, intellectual and emotional energy has been spent on this subject rather than on far more pressing issues of integration such as the high rates of unemployment and deprivation in the Muslim community.

But any smug sense of British superiority is misplaced. The themes that underlie this vexed issue in France are as evident here: this is the latest chapter in a long and troubled history of how liberalism interacts with religion in Europe. Liberalism, with its cherished principles of rationality, individual rights and the rule of law, wanted religion to be a purely private matter, but such a conception makes no sense to a profoundly social faith such as Islam.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks is over questions of belonging and identity: are you French or Muslim, or can you be both? We haven't resolved these questions here - for example, the questioning of the loyalty of the Muslim community by Denis MacShane, the UK Foreign Office minister. The difference is that while France has had a passionately intense debate that has split every political allegiance, Britain has managed to dodge such a showdown.

The roots of France's secularism lie in the struggle against the overweening power of the Catholic church: how to cut it down to size and assert the primacy - and neutrality - of the state was the goal. France's schools were the vehicle to turn Catholic peasants into French republican citizens, points out Drake, and state education was how you built an integrated, cohesive nation.

The French secularist tradition has its own coherent logic, but it was conceived in one set of historical circumstances, and is now being applied in another, vastly different set. The end result of this logic - the breeding of a generation of angry Muslims - could be, quite literally, catastrophic.

The approach of British liberalism has been to "liberalize" religion over the past 200 years; trimming it into a "system of ethics, propped up by God", as the political philosopher Bhikhu Parekh puts it. From John Locke onwards, Britain wanted its religion reasonable; in effect, it turned religion into a pale form of itself. The miracles and extraordinary events of the gospels were reduced to allegory and one was left with that very English type of faith: tolerant, accommodating Anglicanism.

At the heart of liberalism is a profound certainty of itself and of its own superiority, argues Parekh. That kind of certainty cannot but lead to some closure of the imagination, a limit to its understanding of whatever is profoundly different from it - such as Islam.

He believes that the fear and certainty are born out of fear that liberalism is a "rare and delicate way of living that is out of accord with normal human behaviour", and thus always in danger from the forces of barbarianism. The two-sided tragedy of liberalism is that it doesn't know its own limits, and neither does it know its own strength. If it knew both of these, it would find the self- confidence and humility to understand and learn from those who challenge it. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service.

http://www.dawn.com/2003/12/19/int17.htm

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

Don't we have essentially the same issue in the US? I mean, rigid secularism in the public schools is the Holy Grail of the ACLU, atheists, idiot libs, etc.

IMHO, I think this is totally the 180-degree wrong approach. The way to show that the gubmint is not establishing religion nor any particular religion is to tolerate ALL religions equally. Rather than ban Christmas, or the mere mention of it or any other religious symbol (Menorah, Cross at Easter, etc.) why not let the people who work in a public school celebrate any religious holiday they choose? Are they not private citizens too? We're spending way too much energy on finding ways to limit speech. To me, that is the antithesis of freedom, liberty & the 1st Amendment. When did an atheist being offended by the sight of a Christmas tree in a public building become more important than the 1st Amendment? By definition, an atheist would automatically disregard the symbolism anyway. As long as tax dollars aren't spent on the decorations or putting them up -- then what's the point?

The 1st Amendment's establishment clause has two parts: Congress shall make no law establishing religion, ... nor prohibit the free expression thereof. Seems to me the 2nd part is getting short shrift in this argument.

[Tiger Al 0]

Loggerhead, It sounds to me like we're spending way too much energy boo hooing because the public schools aren't daily extensions of Sunday school. If you feel like you and your church aren't doing a good job in teaching your kids to be good Christians, then I really don't think the public school system should have to bear the responsibility for you and your church's failure. The conservatives are already devising schemes to remove their kids from public schools by way of vouchers because they feel the education provided is inferior. Why would forcing these schools that are already strapped for resources to teach kids all things religious be a better idea than to simply let them focus their energies on teaching kids how to read, write, do math, etc?

[CCTAU 3,350]

Loggerhead, It sounds to me like we're spending way too much energy boo hooing because the public schools aren't daily extensions of Sunday school. If you feel like you and your church aren't doing a good job in teaching your kids to be good Christians, then I really don't think the public school system should have to bear the responsibility for you and your church's failure. The conservatives are already devising schemes to remove their kids from public schools by way of vouchers because they feel the education provided is inferior. Why would forcing these schools that are already strapped for resources to teach kids all things religious be a better idea than to simply let them focus their energies on teaching kids how to read, write, do math, etc?

Oh yeah. The way the public schools are running now is SSSOOOOO much bettere than when, say, SUNDAY SCHOOL WAS MORE PREVALANT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Yeah, you're right. Its much better NOW.

BTW. Boo Hoo! Got mine out of the way!

[Tigermike 3,057]

The libs got the Bible out of the school & replaced it with guns.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

Loggerhead, It sounds to me like we're spending way too much energy boo hooing because the public schools aren't daily extensions of Sunday school. If you feel like you and your church aren't doing a good job in teaching your kids to be good Christians, then I really don't think the public school system should have to bear the responsibility for you and your church's failure. The conservatives are already devising schemes to remove their kids from public schools by way of vouchers because they feel the education provided is inferior. Why would forcing these schools that are already strapped for resources to teach kids all things religious be a better idea than to simply let them focus their energies on teaching kids how to read, write, do math, etc?

C'mon Al,

Try to stay on topic -- my post said nothing about teaching Sunday school or even Christianity in the public schools. It's about how to achieve the separation of church and state. The way I see it, the gubmint can proceed one of two ways:

(1) the secular route where the mere hint of religious practice (e.g. school children wearing head scarves) or a traditional symbolic display (e.g. Christmas tree or nativity scene on the lawn of a courthouse) is deemed to be a threat to freedom of speech & civilization itself. Dogs & cats living together! ... Mass hysteria!

OR

(2) the tolerance route where a public entity like a school or county can state publicly they endorse no particular religion nor religion in general (in their Vision Statements, of course ) but encourage & allow their employees to worship & celebrate traditional holidays as they see fit -- as long as no tax dollars are spent on the decorations or in putting them up either.

One way is total control & the other is total freedom. Which approach more closely resembles the intent of the 1st Amendment?

[DKW 86 7,447]

The Democrats have all said the U.S. should not be in Iraq, but they would have agreed if the UN had mandated and France had been onboard to help. 

France has now declared war on terrorists. See for yourself at the link below.

Man, we are sssooo lucky. Just yesterday 14 terrorists died after hearing about France coming after them. Uh huh, died from.....(wait for it)....laughter.

Chirac: "I see talking about war as failure."

Rush: (paraphrase) "When you are talking France and war, you are talking about failure!"

[Tiger Al 0]

C'mon Al,

Try to stay on topic -- my post said nothing about teaching Sunday school or even Christianity in the public schools. It's about how to achieve the separation of church and state. The way I see it, the gubmint can proceed one of two ways:

(1) the secular route where the mere hint of religious practice (e.g. school children wearing head scarves) or a traditional symbolic display (e.g. Christmas tree or nativity scene on the lawn of a courthouse) is deemed to be a threat to freedom of speech & civilization itself. Dogs & cats living together! ... Mass hysteria!

OR

(2) the tolerance route where a public entity like a school or county can state publicly they endorse no particular religion nor religion in general (in their Vision Statements, of course ) but encourage & allow their employees to worship & celebrate traditional holidays as they see fit -- as long as no tax dollars are spent on the decorations or in putting them up either.

One way is total control & the other is total freedom. Which approach more closely resembles the intent of the 1st Amendment?

If we're truly going to stay on topic then the topic is about what France has done and not what's done in America.

I would say, though, that in America the second way that you listed is, by and large, the way things are done.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

...

I would say, though, that in America the second way that you listed is, by and large, the way things are done.

Well, then you haven't been paying attention. This is a regular column on Foxnews and they present stuff like this all the time. I don't know where you live but I'm willing to bet you have some of this kind of stuff going on in your own community:

Free Speech Threats

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, then you haven't been paying attention. This is a regular column on Foxnews and they present stuff like this all the time. I don't know where you live but I'm willing to bet you have some of this kind of stuff going on in your own community:

Free Speech Threats

I guess I need to go have a talk with my mayor to see about getting all that Christmas stuff taken out of the city park and off the lightposts. And I'd better not find out that city, state or federal employees are getting holiday pay for Christmas.

[rexbo 104]

(Hijacking this thread, again.)

...The conservatives are already devising schemes to remove their kids from public schools by way of vouchers because they feel the education provided is inferior.

Wrong, the force behind school vouchers is so that inner city parents can get their kids out of failing public schools. And the force against it is the teacher's unions (and the Democratics who take their money) who don't want to have to improve their public schools once the competition for the dollars begins. (Another simple little concept the Democrats do not understand, a little competition leads to a lot of improvement.)

I support vouchers, but I would not take my kids out of the public schools they are in now, they are pretty decent. But, if I lived in the middle of DC, I would be screaming loud and clear for another choice for my children...

[DKW 86 7,447]

Last time I looked, all those big Dem Liberals were sending their kids to private schools in DC, not to any public schools.

No, they only want our kids in public schools, not theirs.

Gore was really funny in this. He and his kids had NEVER been to a public school. He had no experience with public schools in his life, not as a student, nor as a parent. This was the best the Dems could come up with? A man with absolutely no clue about public education in America and he wanted to be the Education President?