Religion is an idenfication for only 6% of the French people.

In a last study, 94% of the French people say that the religion is a strictly private affair and it doesn't identify them neither as citizen nor as a member of a community.

What do you think about ?

Sorry but that's my association.

Oh and that bald goalkeeper

It'd be good to know SOMETHING about another country ;-)

How about this for knowledge of the French: they coined the word "surrender" and quickly used it when visited by the Nazis. Here endeth the lesson.

It must be nice to have such a mastery of selective history. It's so easy to forget how the French royals helped bankroll the American Revolution to the point of starving their people into a revolution of their own. Face it, without the French, we'd still be kissing royal derriere as a colony.

Oh, don't think so? Think we'd have gotten our independence anyway? Well, it just so happens that when Civil War broke out it was the French, once again, who came to the rescue by helping to fund the Union while the British dumped money into the Confederacy with hopes of regaining some hold on the former colonies.

So next time you feel like bashing the French because they were occupied by the Nazis take some time out to actually read up on what you're talking about.

I don't understand very well why this bullshit in a topic about our secular way of life !

lol it's not like we're serious

Il a pris une pierre tombale en pleine gueule. Cliquer sur son "profile" (la petite tête à côté de son nom) pour la voir.

haha if you only knew howmuch you'd hear that in the guildchat in Everquest

Let's not get too down on the French, afterall......they did TRY to fight the NAzi's unlike the US who took a few years.

Too bad you've most likely already been tombstoned..I'd like to have a piece of you.

Far too many Americans are being manipulated in the name of "religion" in the manner of the feudal Church.

I have seen an uptick in Evagelist activity in Europe. I am talking about the televangelists. I think they feel they are on some holy crusade to liberate the Europeans from socialism and their apathy toward religion.

All I have to say is watch out for these people.

:D

yay for civilization, may it arrive on these shores before it's too late.

Hey, waddya think happens when you let the religious nuts start their own country?

Seriously though, I'm not surprised to hear this. Wish the concept of "religion is a private affair" would catch on here in America.

Among Wealthy Nations …
U.S. STANDS ALONE IN ITS EMBRACE OF RELIGION

Religion is much more important to Americans than to people living in other wealthy nations. Six-in-ten (59%) people in the U.S. say religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self-avowed religious people in Canada (30%), and an even higher proportion when compared with Japan and Western Europe. Americans’ views are closer to people in developing nations than to the publics of developed nations.



More: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=167

The US is practically THIRD WORLD. And the way the dollar and public education are headed......

in France, we have a great debate about the necessity to promulgate a law for prohibiting the wearing of all religious, political or philosophical signs in the schools and at work.

The majority of French supports this law.

so I couldn't wear a ghandi t-shirt or one with a red star on it?

Religion should be a private manner, but you can't limit what people wear

Meaning to students in primary and secondary schools and for civil servants in public jobs. Those are considered "religion free zones."

Otherwise you can wear--or not wear--whatever you want anywhere in France. Even for topless/thong sunbathing on the Seine. ;-)

but I still have an issue with not being allowed to wear that kind of thing in HS. In a civil service job I wouldn't wear it because it would be unprofessional.

What if someone wore a cross necklace?

You can express anything you want but not DIRTY RELIGION!!!

That is the state demoninzing religion, nothing less. Yow are sedning the message that religion is a ugly thing that should not be tolerated in public.

Please be kind enough not to call our customs and laws "disgusting" and show them the respect we show yours.

Maybe this will help, from the French Embassy in the US: The Secular Principle

And yes I will call this LAW disgusting. It gets no respect because it deserves none.

What's next the religious people that wish to practice should live in certain areas? Perhaps with fences around them?

By law. Since then, a number of customs have arisen to preserve the secularity of the French government.

If you find it disgusting, please go elsewhere for vacation. And to post.

preserve seperation? We aren't talking employees of the goverment we are talking students. You are seeking to force them into hiding their faith.

And further more I can say whatever the hell I want to say about pending laws in France on a political discussion board. If you don't liek it hit ignore. I'm attacking a law that's what politics is about.

Schools and public services are simply areas where public display of religion is off limits. You can continue to believe whatever you want; that right and your right to your faith is protected by the French Constitution.

That is how the goverment communicates to it's people. You outlaw religion in public areas and allow just about any other form of expression and you are in effect demonizing religion.

It doesn't apply to you anyway.

If you don't have anything rational or constructive to say--or aren't willing to understand that this is a totally different cultural/social/historical context from one you're accustomed to, why don't you go find another sandbox in which to spill your ridiculous spew?

Pathetic.

just a polite sod off

And you shouldn't be defending it after bitching about wanting logical and open debate.

and alludes to the evil intentions of the other when that isn't the even the issue being discussed well...its hard to debate

If you don't like what the other side says you find that it is acceptable to hurl insults instead?

BTW - I don't think the intention are evil, they are what they are. I simpley don't like it when people pretend they don't exist because that's dishonest. Dishonesty makes a debate meaningless. So if you want to discuss nonsense as in "we must force are ways on muslims in order to remain free" you are free to do so. I won't waste my time on bullshit.

but there was no insult direct at you in that post. Whereas you, elsewhere, posted things that were very insulting.

I was referring back to your comment that atheists who have too much power would try to force religion underground with the evil intentions comment, sorry for not being more clear.

historically accurate. I also stated that both sides behave that way.

Also how is a statement about both atheists and fundies somehow less direct then a insult directed at me as a individual. That's absurd and you know it.

BTW - both my comment and this other persons failed to be as direct as your display of immaturity earlier.

:boring:

but your conclusions were not.

Also how is a statement about both atheists and fundies somehow less direct then a insult directed at me as a individual. That's absurd and you know it.
I have no idea to what you're referring as your posts are making progressively less and less sense.


my immaturity? this is ridiculous

I have no idea to what you're referring as your posts are making progressively less and less sense

I'm talkig about your claim that a comment concerning the actions of two opposing sides is somehow more directly insulting then to literally directly insult someone. That is absurd if you can't understand that then go away and stop wasting my time.

my immaturity? this is ridiculous

Reading this I see that arrogance perhaps would have been a better word.

The only passionate debate must be about cooking :-) That's the real life !!!!

the funny thing is BC and I are both Catholics, Americans, residents of DC, Democrats, and liberals...we have more in common than not, but the passion does get out of hands sometimes :eyes:

I don't believe there is an arrogant bone in my body. I agree with you for heaven's sake, but the fact that I disagree with your anger and your reasoning leads you to attack and misrepresent me. Good on ya. I can understand quite a lot, it appears you are the one with the comprehension problem

You accuse me of immaturity, its a ridiculous claim.
You accuse me of being insulting first, it's a ridiculous claim.

I didn't say you were ridiculous, but your posts here certainly are.

...to the French Embassy's "Secular Principle" page?

1. The Nazis and Soviets made a pile of trouble applying the theory that "what is legal is what is right."

2. Without religion there can be no demons. therefore, it is impossible to "demonize religion."

We live a very great freedom of religion in France and very peacefully.

We live a very great freedom of religion in France. We're debating about a law because 94% of French wants to keep this way of life (but we're always debating, perhaps the conclusion will be that a law is not the best solution)

which is a good thing, and not just French, much of Europe (northern Europe especially) is following this path. The US is a standout in this regard

Think about it.

I have.

Could it be because there is a rise in people that do not share that custom? So then that 'custom' is no longer a custom but instead a old way of thinking you want to force on others.

which is why I am agains the law, but seperation of church and state is a long standing custom in France, to deny that is bullshit

State is represented by it's elected leaders, employees, and laws.

in the state, etc. Students aren't equal to the state but they are entitled to representation I would think at least if laws about them are to be created. In the meantime the adults of France get to decide who and what their children get to wear to school.

The defense "seperation of church and state" was used and I am asking how students represent the state. It's dishonest to claim they do simpley to pass this absurd law.

And the education they provide on behalf of the state.

I'd think that was plain.

not the student.

And the state has the obligation to treat all students equally and provide the same education to all.

For example, no student can claim exemption from certain classes (physical education, biology, or any mixed-gender activities) based on religious beliefs.

(Certain measures are taken in French public schools to accomodate religious dietary practices, but no exemptions are allowed for course content.)

The French have adopted the solution of making the classroom a religion free zone to ensure the highest level of equality. I realize it seems odd from an American point of view, but if you put your mind to it, it's not nearly as shocking as you make it out to be. Particularly when you realize, as BonjourUSA has pointed out, the French rarely discuss religion or share information about their faith in a professional or social context. When we say something is private, we mean private.

A final example about secularism and privacy that may give you an idea of French mentality, customs, and law: The secular principle is so strict that the government is prohibited from collecting any data on citizens' religious beliefs. Imagine your next census form without those checkboxes.

and democratic principles. Students represent the state in that it represents them (sounds like circular logic but it isn't). A state may only pass a restrictive law with the consent of the people through their elected representatives or direct polling of them. The argument of church and state is not applicble in this part of the argument. The Church and State argument comes into play because it the state does not have the right to dictate one religion. Because French law is different from US your socialization leads you to expect different things than a French person does. In France the law has been since 1905 that schools and public offices are religion free zones. Whether or not you agree with that is a side bar. I will agree with you that this law is unecessarily restrictive and aimed racistly at muslims more than Christians. It is not however, an atheist conspiracy to destroy christianity nor is your characterization of France (to borrow a term you like to use) honest.

I'm not being dishonest, and I'm not arguing for or against the law, just putting out information.

I think its a bad thing, but it really ain't any of my business what the people of France decide to do in France

In France the law has been since 1905 that schools and public offices are religion free zones. Whether or not you agree with that is a side bar. I will agree with you that this law is unecessarily restrictive and aimed racistly at muslims more than Christians. It is not however, an atheist conspiracy to destroy christianity nor is your characterization of France (to borrow a term you like to use) honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#France

Since 1905, France has had a law requiring separation of church and state, prohibiting the state from recognizing or funding any religion; the French constitution; freedom of religion is a constitutional right. The 1905 law was highly controversial at the time.

References to religious beliefs to justify public policies is considered a political faux pas, since it is widely believed that religious beliefs should be kept out of the public sphere.

Public tax money supports some church-affiliated schools, but they must agree to follow the same curriculum as the public schools and are prohibited from forcing students to attend religion courses or to discriminate against students on the basis of religion.

Churches, synagogues, temples and cathedrals built before 1905, at the taxpayers' expense, are now the property of the state and the communes; however they may be gratuitously used for religious activities provided this religious use stays continuous in time. Some argue that this is a form of unfair subsidy for the established religions in comparison to Islam.

For historical reasons, the Alsace-Moselle area is still under the pre-1905 regime established of the Concordat, which provides for the public subsidy of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Calvinist Church and the Jewish Religion as well as public education in those religions. An original trait of this area is that priests are paid by the state; the bishops are named by the President on the proposal of the Pope. Controversy erupts periodically on the appropriateness of these and other extraordinary legal dispositions of Alsace-Moselle.

and, amending the original?

it's custom to recite it ... yet, there is some legislation attached to the custom

in some cultures, customs are laws

There is no written English constitution.

My ancestor didn't emigrate in 1700 just to go to church ... he came to be free of others' religions.

It seems to infringe on liberty.

But try to keep in mind that the church in France aided and abetted the authoritarianism of the monarchs and the oppression of common people. Remember what the French Revolution was about: poor people had to pay taxes which the aristocracy and the church were exempt from. In the French experience organized religion has done far, far more harm than good, particularly when it is entwined with the state.

Personally I hate organized Christianity and Islam with the same fervor with which I hate Naziism and Stalinism, but in my mind banning religious clothing goes too far.

The muslim youth is not against this law but asks for it.

You are going to tell people they CAN NOT express their religion on their own bodies in school? So much for free speech eh? Only freedom for the anti-theists?

This is EXACTLY what happens everytime athiests numbers grow too high. They always try to wipe out any religion and force it underground.

Its not a question of atheism really since philosophical and political attire will be banned as well. I wouldn't support something like that either...but not because the atheists are out to get us

You think the concept of atheist vs religion is new? Kid open your eyes. This has happened before and has happened many times.

and look who usually comes out on top....religion.

I know my history quite well actually. Do you think its even minorly possible that there might be some atheists out there who don't care if/what you believe and won't try to drive it underground?

My eyes are open, check yours

You have sympathy because athiesm has lost, you fail to see both sides at their extremes (this law isn't coming from center) are the same exact shit.

I know many athiests who like myself encourage displays of belief and only fear when one side tries to silence the other. But this case has exactly NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. This is about athiest THAT DO HAVE A PROBLEM.

Is your eyes are open why is it you FAIL to see a law would allow ALL EXPRESSION OTHER THEN RELIGION is not based in tolerence.

and a good deal of condecension...so can we stop with the name calling and get back to honest discussion? I'm not that much younger than you in fact, so get off your high horse and debate it.

I see both sides in their extremes. Atheism can be as bad as any religion if it takes over and is directed by the same kinds of men that give religion a bad name. I have no sympathy for the abuse of belief systems on any side, but I do see that the seperation of church and state is a very important to maintaining a free and successful nation.

This law DOES NOT disallow "all expression other then <sic> religion". It also prohibits political and philosophical symbols as well if you looked at the law or even read the post. I don't agree with the law, but you're overreacting to it man, chill out.

while calling others stupid? Interesting.

Seperation of church and state does not require one to prohibit free speech. I won't accept that and I certainly won't pretend it's not that big a deal.

I'm not defending the law, but I'm correcting your inaccuracies.

You have only pointed out religion has been the victor in most conflicts of this nature. And that this law included other symbols it will ban so that it can pretend it's about something other then bigotry.

What you have done is lost your cool and called me a few names. Good show.

and I countered only to show you the ridiculousness of your own attacks, after which I said can drop the name calling and debate this logically and openly, something you have thusfar not done. Better show on your part.

I have only pointed out that half the things you have said are wrong or are unfair attacks against atheists who were not even a part of this discussion. I'm still perfectly cool, you're the one using intermitten caps locks and insulting terminology

and you are still perfectly cool because you don't use capslock. I see. I didn't realise that using caps to stress a point equated to losing your cool.

Interesting.

BTW - You mention that you want to debate logically and openly. How about honestly for a change. How about looking into the motives some have to support this law, instead of accepting that forcing muslims to break their religious laws is needed to keep france free.

and yes I find that to be rather insluting. But I certainly have not lost my cool, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Let me say this; I dislike this law because it is pushed to oppress the Muslim women who wear a headscarf. I dislike the limits it places on civil liberties, and think that people ought to be allowed to display whatever images they like. I respect the french custom of Seperation of Church and state but do not like this law. That said as an American it is no business of mine what the people of France choose to enact for legislation for themselves. I'm perfectly honest and have no need to change anything. Perhaps you might consider a similar policy in regards to your own posting habits

Say something. Don't freak out launch into insults and then pretend to be cooler then you are. And for the record your rants about the great logic and openeness contained in your posts are amazingly arrogant. You assume that your views respresent right.

I countered what you said half seriously, with the intention of showing the ludicrousness of your assaults on myself and other posters and then asked that we leave the juvenille bs at the door.

My rants about the great logic and openeness? What the heck are you talking about? I assume nothing but what is sitting before me. Since I share the same view as you, albeit for slightly different reasons I wouldn't think you would be so critical of my choice of what is right. I have not blustered crying poor poor pitiful me, the atheists are out to oppress me. I know what I think is right, but I have treated you with more respect than you have me. Enough of this side-bar of ridiculousness...do you have anything to say about the bulk of the post which contained an non-insulting logical progression of my thought on the issue at hand

I countered what you said half seriously, with the intention of showing the ludicrousness of your assaults on myself and other posters and then asked that we leave the juvenille bs at the door

There were no assaults on you, the only assualt came from a oversensative reaction concerning age.


I have not blustered crying poor poor pitiful me, the atheists are out to oppress me.

No one has said anything of the sort. I have however acknowledged the existence of such motivations. Do you deny that such motivations exist?

I have never once met an atheist who is out to destroy all relgiions and drive them underground. Many have a lot of unecessary anger and can be rude about their views on religion, but then so can Christians. You did say exactly that.

I did not overreact, but it sure is funny that you have completely stopped discussing the topic at hand and instead made it a debate over mutual incomprehension. Is that how you often debate? obscure the facts and issue with personal fighting.

If you have something to say on the topic I'd suggest you do so as I've tried to steer it back to that in several posts on this thread. If not, stop responding to me

You're the one who's getting up in his face about what he's saying. Post after post of yours is just filled with insults. You're the one who's seriously acting arrogant, yet you call HIM on it. So...do you have anything else to add to the conversation, other than insults?

while you yourself have added nothing.

Thanks for playing.

it just happened to be my point as well so of course you discredit it. When the thread participants and neutral observers all agree you started shit...well it doesn't say much for your interpertation.

Thanks for Playing.

Okay, fine...

I believe that religion and politics and other stuff like this are personal for the most part. People shouldn't go down the streets and preach and stuff their views down people's throats. THAT is the purpose of the law, not an attack on religion by atheists.

okay, your turn.

This law is being proposed by a Conservative government (Chirac's), and the French right wing is most often associated with religious advocates. But French Conservatives also gave us the right to abortion. Hard to compare to a US context. As we say here, the US has no left wing political parties. ;-)

No need to get your panties in a bunch today. And this prohibition doesn't effect you unless you plan on attending or teaching in a French primary or secondary school, or becoming a French civil servant.

Or politician. You can't end a speech with "God bless France" in France. You'd be laughed and booed off the stage.

Otherwise we would not be discussing it.

The rule involving religious symbols in school was enforced first by Republican (as in French Republic) principle or custom (or social taboo, if you must), then formalized by government decree decades ago. That decree has proven insufficient. Hence the discussion on this new law. Does that help?

-The Reign of Terror following the French Revolution
-the Soviet bloc
-Communist China

...except in schools and public services as I mentioned above. And much wider freedom of speech than in the US, except for publication of material that incites religious or racial hatred.

(You're forgetting we fought our Revolution here against the Church.)

as long as no one sees it. You call that freedom? pfft.

I'm not surprised though, this has happened before the church and the atheists always try to screw eachother over. Two sides of the same coin and you are too damn blind to see it.

so its not like all religion has to go underground completly

But you will deny it where students spend most of their days. It's a way to kill religion by stopping it from passing to the next generation.

No different then if you made all US school christian and said people are free to be atheists. You force the next generation to think your way, and watch the results.

That's why French youngsters get Wednesday afternoon off from school--so they can attend Catechism. :eyes:

Defend that.

Muslim girls and women are clamoring for this legislation themselves. The majority of them view hijab as patriarchal, sexist and repressive.

To behave as you see fit. Why do you think of yourself so highly to think you are justified in forcing your ways on others?

This bill, if passed, would be adopted on behalf of the French nation by its elected representatives. That's how democracy works. Everyone has to obey the law once it's passed. Simple enough.

But if you were a practicing French Muslim schoolgirl and preferred to wear hijab to class, you could always go to a private Muslim school. Nothing stopping you. And much cheaper than a private school in the US. Problem solved.

All people that feel they are superior enough to demand everyone behave like them are the issue. People should be allowed to follow any customs that don't harm others, why can't you accept that?

Where the hell do you get these things?

I think you took the wrong pill today.

For example, I don't know the religion of my co-workers and of many of my friends.

interesting.

Because religion is restricted to a very private sector that indicates hatred? Sheesh!

ON EDIT: A private sector of one's life. Intimacy, if you will.

Since when are public institutions consider private?

You know I am noticing a string of odd comments from you. First you argue this law has been on the books for a hundred years, which it hasn't. Now you claim public = private.

Can you not make a valid defense?

keep the shit in your own damn house. You believe it, fine, but don't go forcing it down my throat.

That being said I don'tthink the wearing of faith symbols is forcing it down someone's throat.

I don't want prayer in school or any metnion of religion outside the context of history where religion has played a large role. But at the same time I take offense to any law anywhere that says I can't wear a cross, which I do for personal reasons on rare occasions.

...or a French civil servant you can wear your cross. You can even wear your cross in school or on your civil service job regardless, as long as you wear it under your clothes where it can't be seen. Simple, no?

What harm does a cross do? I'm not religious by the way, just so you know.

Not wearing a cross could be seen as a symbol of athiesism...so they get a say and others don't ?

If no one knows who's wearing a crucifix under his/her clothes, no one knows who the real atheists are! :evilgrin:

:bounce:

;-)

or even dislike, its just not an issue to some people :eyes:

my history prof will be interested to hear that. :P The church was one institution that the revolution was against, but not solely

but the Fr Rev as I understand it was more an issue of politics seeing as the divine rule of kings was in the beginning of its decline

...that when the forces faced off for the Revolution the Church was staunchly on the side of the old, monarchal guard. And as I'm sure you know (or if you checked out that link I posted above on the Secular Principle), the long-standing conflicts between civil society and the Church were not really calmed until 1905, quite some time after the Revolution.

the church was a disruptive player within politics in France all along (well perhaps not under Napoleon but that's another issue). I did the link and it was very interesting.

:-)

We already died for that... I think we could die again for

and you are willing to die for this noble cause?

The French muslim (not the cleric, of course) support the secular principle.

you wouldn't need it

You are upset because there are muslims that don't adapt.. go to schools with headscarf etc

against their own will.

But then again that's not the issue here is it....

"This is EXACTLY what happens everytime athiests numbers grow too high. They always try to wipe out any religion and force it underground."

As I say elsewhere this law is being proposed by Chirac's government. The French right wing could never rationally be seen as atheistic! That's simply laughable!

You guys are just angry about muslims wearing their head scarf at schools etc.


Had there only been christians in France you guys would have never dreamt of imposing stuff like this.


Usa = MUCH more religious freedom then france.

Atleast we tolerate other religions

and the real reason for the law

Since 1905 wearing "ostentatious" religious political and religious symbols has been prohibited in the same circumstances. No crucifixes, no Stars of David, etc. (Though you can wear them under your clothes of course.)

This law extends to non-employess of the goverment.

I know that it's a big business in france and germany, didn't a bunch of french actors write a letter to ban them?

What I'm saying is that if it weren't forthe scarf you wouldn't have continued banning religion from schools in an even greater scale

France banned religion in school in 1905 AFAIR - no headscarf debate then.
Germany is another story. Unlike France it is a federal Republic (not unlike the US), with states responsible for things like that.
The northern states are generally secular, while the southern states are very religous and hardly secular at all (as a few Regions, not states, at the western borders: Westfalia and the Rhineland).
The northern states are preparing legislation banning all Religion, like France, while the southern states are trying to ban everything except crosses. The ammount of hypocrisy used to justifiy that is mindboggling.

The other distinction is: conservative Governors from the northern states do no new legislation, as does the liberal Governor in a southern state.


On Edit: The laws discussed in Germany at the moment would apply for teachers only.

Only 8% pratice their religion, and as French the enormous majority of them defend the secular principle.

You think it right that you stop the minority from doing something that harms no one?

Your majority has a lot in common with our "moral majority" here in the US. I must say I expected more from the French.

BTW - how is one a Muslim if you don't practice? Are you trying to say that if you don't attend religious service or follow the holy books exactly as you are told that you really aren't Muslim?

Someone posted it a few months ago and I found it really striking but forgot to bookmark it. Great graph!

Helpful in trying to inderstand whats happening to our country.

good for them that they have learned that religion is a private enterprise and that it should only be kept to oneself

And what do you think will happen tomorrow when the Stasi Commission report is released? Do you think Chirac will propose a new law to prohibit religious symbols in schools and government services?

I saw a bit of a poll today in Le Monde that said 49% of Muslim women in France favor a law outlawing the Muslim headscarf (foulard) in schools.

provided it's a) not disruptive, b) not done in an attempt to proselytize, c) doesn't create the appearance that a person in authority is attempting to enforce a "standard." That last one's the difficult one. If your teacher is wearing a cross around their neck, and you're a young and impressionable child, are you likely to identify how you feel with that teacher with how you feel about that religious symbol, and by extension, that religion? It's possible. So persons in authority have a special responsibility to be careful not to be appearing to proselytize or to favor those who agree with their positions on personal matters such as religion or politics. It's a thin line to walk, and that's where most of the problems about displaying religious symbols or discussing religion arise.

I only wish people viewed it as such over here.

The second panel, which deals specifically with questions of religious symbols in schools, issued its report last month. It recommended that all religious and political symbols be banned from public schools but that some leeway be granted to private schools receiving state subsidies.

"If we don't fix the existing rules in the schools, we will soon find ourselves in courts with judges wearing head scarves or kippots . This matters in France," said Herve Mariton, a deputy in Parliament from Chirac's party and a member of the second panel.

"The larger idea behind secularism is neutrality in the public sphere," he said. "This neutrality equals a kind of politeness. Politeness in the public sphere means you do what is necessary to make others who are different feel at ease."

According to Mariton, this means no crosses, head scarves or kippots in public schools.

Few would dispute that a cross and the Jewish Star of David are religious symbols, but is a kippot or a head scarf a symbol?

"It's not a sign or a symbol at all. It's a religious practice," said Noura Jaballah, head of the French League of Muslim Women.

The distinction is considered significant. Barring a religious practice, she said, would be an infringement of religious freedom and a violation of human rights.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0312040141dec04,1,6465012.story

I see both sides of the debate. Personally I don't see anything wrong with someone wearing a crucifix or a head scarf or a Star of David. Banning all of these seems to me to be not a way to promote tolerance, but a way to avoid it. But as an American I certainly don't feel qualified to lecture the French on the best way to promote tolerance... yes the FN exists but it seems to be widely reviled by the general populace ... in general the level of tolerance seems to be much higher in France than the USA.

over their own religion and their own political feeling.

I just want you to remember that 94% of the French population is not atheist !

:shrug:

I think the US should be half as sane when it comes to religion.

.