When this topic is discussed, it is usually about the hijab for Muslims and crosses on neck chains or badges for Christians.

I would be interested to know what the French position is on outwardly visible signs by other religions that are not in the front line of the current global tensions, in particular:

• wrist bangles and turbans or long hair for Sikhs. I think there are three other symbols they wear, but they are not usually visible to others
• tassels and skullcaps for orthodox jews.

For some symbols, it is unclear to what extent they are religious vs cultural, like the red mark on the forehead for Hindus.

Then there are symbols that are only worn at certain times, like the ash mark on the forehead for RCs on Ash Wednesday.

I can see some good points in the French approach, but it must get especially difficult around the boundary.

I have long agreed with a total ban on organized forms of religion-if not to reduce tribal violence but also because religion is a tool of the dark ages, the antitheses to critical thinking and equality. In Ontario we talk about equality but still have a Catholic public ally funded school board. Ridiculous.

The Establishment of Religion clause in the U.S. constitution was a result of centuries of people attempting to stop certain expressions of religious thought.
The thought in the clause is to permit everything but not let any of those expressions become the basis of civil discourse in the formation of law.
It may not be perfect but may be better than the state acting upon opinions regarding religious expression.

I agree, in fact the only way to protect religious or non- religious belief is to ensure that no such belief is ever backed by the state.

Or prohibited. That is the more gnarly part of the right.

Deflating the intensity of religious feeling probably would reduce intergroup friction over religious issues. Banning from public display crosses, hijabs, saffron robes, crescents and stars, forehead dots, etc. might help. However, it isn't scapular crosses, head coverings, or other symbols or clothing items that give religion public intensity. Let's go a little further: Let's also ban religious education, agitation, and religious preaching. After all, it is in churches, mosques, temples, madrasas, Sunday schools, and so forth that people get religiously revved up.

We might as well go ahead and ban the existence of religious organizations. If we really don't like religious static in society, then let's just ban it altogether. NO RELIGION ALLOWED.

Banning religion won't make it disappear overnight, of course. The Soviets banned religion, and while it's vitality was considerably reduced, once it was no longer banned (1991) it seems to have sprung back with remarkable resilience.

We could ban religions selectively. The soviets tolerated the Russian Orthodox church more than some other religions. I find Catholic and mainline protestantism quite tolerable, but would be glad to see Islam and fundamentalist Christianity banned. Judaism is OK, and the Orthodox are good for local color. I suppose the Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and so forth could be put up with. I have my doubts about animism. Certain screwy heretical groups, like Mormons, should probably be suppressed. Though, they have gradually been getting slightly more liberal, lately. However, the gay valedictorian at Brigham Young University (a Mormon school) didn't get much applause at his speech to his graduating class in April.

How about turning churches and mosques into granaries? Or gay bath houses? Or atheist lecture halls? Or squash courts? or... There are some gaudy Catholic churches that would make fabulous bathhouses and bordellos--very campy.

See. Your @Gnostic Grace, you just are not being imaginative enough.

I can see some good points in the French approach, but it must get especially difficult around the boundary. — andrewk

There will and should be challenges to such laws and over time, the law will decide where, if any, boundaries should be set.
If I read the Quebec law correctly, it would be adjusted by the courts and likely changed to be moral all encompassing because as it stands, it discriminates against those who would seek employment within our governing and legal systems.

I think the final law in Quebec will be made to match more closely the one in France and other E.U. nations that have clamped down on public displays.

Canada will not allow, I hope, employment discrimination and will make it an overall discrimination everywhere and not just in government employment.

Regards
DL

I have long agreed with a total ban on organized forms of religion-if not to reduce tribal violence but also because religion is a tool of the dark ages, the antitheses to critical thinking and equality. In Ontario we talk about equality but still have a Catholic public ally funded school board. Ridiculous. — Grre

I agree to all but your last even as I see and agree with your point. It is you calling it ridiculous that I dislike. I call it smart as the Catholic board, unfortunately to both of our views, is producing better results than the public system. I admit to not knowing why.

My children are no longer of school age and I am, if anything, anti-religious even though I am a Gnostic Christian, but chose to put my children in the Catholic board so as to insure they got the best that Canada could provide. If the secular public schools come up to the Catholic standard of excellence, then I will be able to change my views.

Regards
DL

It may not be perfect but may be better than the state acting upon opinions regarding religious expression. — Valentinus

You live in a free country and are a free man and your wife and children are free to go into the public space dressed as they like.
That is not so in a Muslim household where the man is more of a slave owner than one leading a free family.
I see our first duty as free people as being to insure that all our people share in the freedoms we enjoy.
Slavery in our country is outlawed and it is our duty to insure that all are equaly able to share the freedoms we enjoy.

The religions say that there is no compulsion in their ideology and I see the laws in question as insuring that the religious live up to their claims by us putting the compulsion of law in their slave loving faces.

Regards
DL

I agree, in fact the only way to protect religious or non- religious belief is to ensure that no such belief is ever backed by the state. — DingoJones

I agree, but see the state as having a duty to end the coercive part of religions that say their religions are not coercive.

The state, in that sense, is a godsend to the more sloppy and vile religions. Nice that the state can help the religionist walk their talk while getting them out of the face of the non-believers. Bad enough that the non-believers have to subsidize the tax shortfall that immoral and the vile religions create.

Regards
DL

Or prohibited. That is the more gnarly part of the right. — Valentinus

I have no problem with prohibiting the teaching that women and gays are inferior citizens as compared to men and that a person's greatest ambition and wish in life should be that of being slaved to a god who is more satanic like than god like.

Regards
DL

Well you say you agree, but then immediately followed up by supporting state interference. Im no fan of organised religion, Im an anti-theist, but it cannot work that way. People have to be free to choose for themselves, thats the only way other people can be free to choose for themselves.
There are certain aspects of our system that are biased towards religion, like tax exemption or religious folks standing in the way of gay civil unions and of course those should be changed as per the separation of church and state but having the state take ANY side has always been a disaster.

See. Your Gnostic Grace, you just are not being imaginative enough. — Bitter Crank

I like your thinking and we will likely go for more banning over time, I hope. Every dog has his day but social change takes time and as you point out, we should not throw the baby, even if rather ugly, out with the bath water. We will have to live with the more garbage religions until the secular and atheist churches that are growing have a chance to catch up.

The world is getting more moral and intelligent and the more stupid and immoral religions are presently shrinking and our duty is to keep that attrition going and accelerate it as much as is possible.

Regards
DL

Well you say you agree, but then immediately followed up by supporting state interference. — DingoJones

The state interferes with all aspects of our lives, including religions as we speak.

You did not quote or try to refute the reasons I put above in us helping religions walk their talk as well as to do our first duty as free people to our people which is to insure that all the slave wanting religions like Christianity and Islam put the law of the land above their mostly unfair coersion and barbaric laws.

but having the state take ANY side has always been a disaster. — DingoJones

?? Two words should be all I need say. Hitler and slavery. Being long winded I will say more of course.

Secular law is a side and if you look at our laws as compared to what the religious laws are, it is demonstrable that secular law is far superior to the laws of all the religious laws that I know of.

Name any exception and we can argue over it.

Regards
DL

State interference in our lives is something I believe should be minimised, especially in the arena of peoples personal beliefs about things. The state should serve us, not bind us.
I did not quote or refute because I agree, the state should do what it can to ensure religions obey the separation of church and state. Thats not the same as restricting religions rights that we non-religious people enjoy such as freedom of association, to speak and promote our personal beliefs (so long as they do not cross the line separating church and state) and to hold personal beliefs others disagree with. I view it a personal duty to speak out against nefarious or harmful belief systems, not a state one. Thats the only way it can work.
I agree secular law is better, its just that secular law should focus on being secular rather than being against any particular religion. Again, thats the only way it can work.

State interference in our lives is something I believe should be minimised, especially in the arena of peoples personal beliefs about things. — DingoJones

We are nations of laws so interference by the state is mandatory.

Religious interference in our lives is something I believe should be minimised, especially in the arena of peoples personal beliefs about things, like Muslim men forcing their slaved women to wear certain garb.

Thats not the same as restricting religions rights that we non-religious people enjoy such as freedom of association, to speak and promote our personal beliefs (so long as they do not cross the line separating church and state) — DingoJones

Which they do as secular law wants freedom from religion as much as you want freedom of religion.

You might wonder why secular laws want to protect freedom from religion by remembering that both inquisitions and jihads are tools that destroy freedom of religion and thought.

Throw in the fact that both Christianity and Islam refuse to grant full equality to women and gays and that should tell you that as nations of laws and equal rights, it is to it to insure that women have the right to not be slaved to the dress code whims of immoral religions and their slave wanting ideologies.

Why are you protecting and promoting religions that preach against the law of the land and who act against that law. Why are you protecting law breakers?

Regards
DL

You must not be paying close attention. We are in agreement.

The Establishment of Religion clause in the U.S. constitution was a result of centuries of people attempting to stop certain expressions of religious thought.
The thought in the clause is to permit everything but not let any of those expressions become the basis of civil discourse in the formation of law.
It may not be perfect but may be better than the state acting upon opinions regarding religious expression. — Valentinus

Good post.

You must not be paying close attention. We are in agreement. — DingoJones

I saw that and spoke to where I wanted to re-enforce. I do get carried away though as a am a passionate Frenchman who enjoys his work. I tent to speak to just what I quote as I am prolific and quite busy. Apologies for being overbearing.

Regards
DL

the Catholic board, unfortunately to both of our views, is producing better results than the public system. I admit to not knowing why. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

One possibility is that the Catholic system may be able to reject difficult students from its system, whereas the public system does not. In many countries that is a common source of misleading statistics that suggest private education is better. Inevitably a public system will get worse results if it accepts (as it should) students rejected by all the private schools.

The Establishment of Religion clause in the U.S. constitution was a result of centuries of people attempting to stop certain expressions of religious thought.
The thought in the clause is to permit everything but not let any of those expressions become the basis of civil discourse in the formation of law.
It may not be perfect but may be better than the state acting upon opinions regarding religious expression. — Valentinus

Right! The original intent of 'the secular state' is to provide a framework within which you are free to practice any religion or none. However, this doesn't imply that 'none' is better than 'any' - which is how it now seems to be interpreted by secular philosophers.

In Ontario we talk about equality but still have a Catholic publicly funded school board. — Grre

Ah, but they're working on it. Quebec votes to ban public employees from wearing religious regalia.

Pardon my views, but I still feel as if "no" organized religion is better than any. But then again, religion is ideology, and ideology arguably, has existed as long as civilization, so even if Christianity and Islam fade away in the next century, it will no doubt be replaced by either the collective growing faith in science, or some form of political/celebrity worship.

I saw that article, but Ontario and Quebec are very different provinces. Quebec has very differnt provincial laws than the rest of Canada (we call it the Texas) and in Ontario at least, despite repeated emphasis in the last decade for greater inclusivity laws (gender neutral driving licenses, bathrooms, very explict sex ed curriculum) nothing is discussed about the public catholic board, despite the fact that such a system of childhood indoctrination is modeled after the Residential Schools and excluding high school, only Catholic children are allowed to go to them. The amount of funding is disproportionate to public schools, especially those schools neglected in poorer areas.

@Gnostic Christian Bishop

I agree, the consensus seems to be that Catholic schools are better run, funded, and disciplined in comparison to public. I went to all public (not being allowed to go to Catholic schools because my family is not Catholic) Despite these discrepenies, it disgusts me that the Catholic curriculum is allowed to waste valuable learning time, learning fictional stories. These students could be learning another language, PHILOSOPHY, more literacy/math support, life skills courses, the trades, but instead wasting time with absolute garbage, which most by the age of 18 stopped believing long ago. I also fail to understand how such a thing can exist with such blatant contradictions ie. Science being taught down the hall from creation theory bullshit.

I want to clear up a few general assumptions here, if I may. But first I will explain that I’m speaking specifically about catholic schools in Australia, so it may be different in Canada. The same assumptions occur here, though.

Catholic schools here do not teach creation theory - they have a carefully structured religious education curriculum that begins with the myths before children develop an understanding of science that enables them to quietly relegate the stories to childhood myth in much the same way as Santa Claus and fairytales (but also allows their parents to push a more literal interpretation if preferred).

I went to all Catholic schools (not being allowed by my parents to go to a public school because my family is Catholic). They do teach another language, philosophy, literacy/maths, life skills courses, the trades, etc - as well as evolution theory in science. The time in RE learning what it says in the bible and how catholic ideology relates to everyday life is not wasted when it also teaches about ethics, relationships, social justice and community-mindedness.

Not all Catholic schools here are run, funded or disciplined the same. Some are elitist, but most prioritise students whose families demonstrate ‘support’ (ie. tolerance) for the catholic ethos, allowing for less conflict in the classroom and respectful participation in all aspects of life at the school (prayer, etc). Enrolling families who will fight these elements of school life is not in anyone’s best interests.

Government funding relates to the alternative of building and funding sufficient public schools and supportive infrastructure to cater for the population, especially in rural and remote areas. It’s in the government’s best interests to support the catholic system, enabling options for rural and regional families which the government cannot financially justify.

The regional catholic school my own children attend has only 55% baptised catholic, with Anglican, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu and Sikh families also enrolled. It is not more expensive or better funded than other schools in the area, and it doesn’t eject ‘troublesome’ kids - yet it has an excellent reputation because of the focus on relationships between teachers, students and families, which produce educational results. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care, and students learn best where they are loved and cared for.

I’m not defending the Catholic Church, which has many serious problems, or its doctrines, which I fundamentally reject. But I do think the catholic school system is unfairly criticised as a whole, based on a number of false assumptions and the fact that its a big target.

Now you can go back the actual topic. Carry on.

A footnote on ‘creationism’ - it forms no part of the official doctrines of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodox communions. It is mainly associated with American Protestant evangelicalism.

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Violence against the religious?

Maybe?

Typically, aside from Columbine, violence against the religious is performed by the religious. If those prone to such violence had less opportunity to think about it, then it would seem to follow that they would also have less opportunity to do it. They would definitely have less time spent thinking about it... aside from those already possessed.

Banning all religious representation would definitely reduce the sheer quantity of times one could think/believe that they didn't really have a choice in the matter. Such is fertile ground for cultivating discontent.

Banning all public religious representations would increase the amount of hatred and violence coming from within the religious community.

One possibility is that the Catholic system may be able to reject difficult students from its system, — andrewk

That has never been done in Canada that I know of.
I and my children were in that system and I have relatives who taught in that system and I think you are completely wrong. I do not know what other countries are doing.

Canada is a cut above most nations. IMO.

Regards
DL

However, this doesn't imply that 'none' is better than 'any' - which is how it now seems to be interpreted by secular philosophers. — Wayfarer

That is the unintelligent position given the lack of equality that religions preach.
To hell with all who think god makes unequal or inferior souls.
Women, if anything, are better than men.

Regards
DL

it disgusts me that the Catholic curriculum is allowed to waste valuable learning time, learning fictional stories. — Grre

I hear you but I cannot agree.

If not for those fictitious stories that my children laughed at, they might have become Catholic instead of atheists. Knowledge, even the fictions, should not be denied our children. They must learn to know one from the other.

One scholar I like is Bart Ehrman. He began as a fundamentalist and the more he learned of the bible the more he became an atheist.

Knowledge is power if one knows how to think.

Regards
DL

Violence against the religious? — creativesoul

Violence against everyone. The religious might just deserve it more given that they deny all people equal rights. Gays and women are stupid if they stay where they are not seen as equal.

Banning all public religious representations would increase the amount of hatred and violence coming from within the religious community. — creativesoul

That is not the case where religions have banned atheism nor where Muslim countries have banned the apparel the O.P. speaks about.

Is that your opinion/speculation or can you cite something with research and not just opinion?

Regards
DL

Humans will always find reasons to kill his fellow human being. Religion, has been/is/will be used to license horrible acts BUT it, simultaneously, enjoins us to goodness. Which other ''reason'' to hurt and kill has a good side like that?