Job Discussion Forums

[shenyanggerry]

I agree that these rules seem silly and unnecessary. It is their country however, if Muslems, Christians, Jews, etc. don't like it, they are free to vote with their feet.

[johnslat]

I agree - all these rules are rude and unnecessary - unless you count making political capital out of the situation, something politicians always consider necessary. It's Political Correctness run amok yet again. But what also bothers me is the big "Tsk-tsks" coming out of places like Saudi Arabia, where no religion other than Islam is even allowed to be publicly practiced. A case of pots and kettles, seems to me.
Regards,
John

[FGT]

I'm writing from Turkey, a country which outlawed the wearing of headscarves (for women) and beards (for men) in government workplaces (including schools) a very long time ago.
Christians here are free to wear crucifixes, jews to wear the yarmulka, but overt symbols of Islam are prohibited. Quite recently there was a case of a woman who was democratically elected as a member of parliament who tried to enter parliament wearing a headscarf and was forbidden. She was subsequently stripped of her status on the grounds of her possessing dual nationality.

I do not wish to debate the rights and wrongs of Turkish law. However, I see a huge difference between the secularism which Turkey propounds, compared with that of France (and Germany is rumoured to be following suit), viz: No headscarves in France = racism. The people who are not allowed to wear traditional dress are not the typical, ethnic French.

I am a Christian, I am a European, I abhor this law. The article was very well expressed and, broadly speaking, reflects my views.

I also drink alcohol and enjoy Guinness when I can get it but I do not appreciate my fellow posters detracting from a very serious subject by discussing the relative merits of this or that variety of beer!

[Teacher in Rome]

[Roger]

And here is my view:
The author failed to explain the rationale from the French point of view. His arguments are those of any Muslim, not those of any religiously observant person. That's pure parochialism.

Now here is the rationale:
The ban on displaying religious symbols in French schools is a timely reminder to the millions of immigrants that France is a Catholic country with secular public schools and institutions.
Many French schools are run by the Catholic church, others are run by the state, and as such they must be neutral in terms of religious practice. France has a sizeable Jewish population, plus a growing number of Muslim immigrants. For France, it's not as easy as it is for the USA to select its immigrants - most come from its former colonies.
There are those who remained at heart Africans, Madegassians, Guineans, Indo-Chinese. The older generation often refused or failed to adapt to life in France.
The French, who are a very tolerant nation, found this out to their horror when ever more young girls from Muslim families fell victim to "honour killings" - you know why they do that in Pakistan, and the same is true of many Muslims in Europe.
When I lived in France, there was one year - I think it was 1986 - when several African girls bled to death even though their Senegassian or Malian fathers took them to hospital: victims of the age-old African genital mutilation!

It's the quality of immigrants, or the quality of their culture, that's the problem. Same situation in Germany - some 4 million residents of Germany are Muslims, the majority of them Turks. Here too the indigenous population and the immigrant population do not share the same views on cetain customs; Turkish fathers and sons have a reputation for getting escited upon learning that their daughter/sister is consorting with a non-Muslim boy! Reverse racism? The issue is: should religious intolerance of immigrants be tolerated by the host nation?

In Germany, some Protestant parents objected to se9eing crucifixes on the walls of classrooms; this brought about legal interference and a hot political debate.
I think, France's ruling is reasonable and necessary. It is trying to strike a balance between the needs of a modern society on one hand, and the more traditionalist minds of some of its society.
As far as i know, Muslims have the freedom to run a Muslim school where everyone else could be excluded.

[struelle]

-- lots of examples of hypocrisy cut --

[arioch36]

i really appreciate the slant of those in Europe and Turkey.

Personally, as someone who believes in jesus, I would object to seeing the crucifix displayed in a clasroom. But I like the idea of having the ten commandments displayed in the court rotunda in America. Hypocritical?

This maybe be a huge generalization based on ignorance and bias, but it seems that "secularism" works in turkey.

If i wanted to be like the first responder, Dan, I would say that Secularism didn't work in Iraq, but that would be disingenuous. Sadaam has nothing to do with the idea of Secularism, just like the decision to drop the atom bomb, the decision to invade germany, the decision to reinvade iraq, the decision to invade Cuba (who was more of a cowboy, kennedy or Bush?)....this has nothing to do with Christianity. It's politics

There are good politicians (okay, debatable) and bad ones, good Christians, bad Christians (I ofen am) etc.

So European travelers, is the France ruling about politicians rationaly thinking about how to make things better, or catering to the current whims of the people, or what?

So is the reason that Muslims in America seem (to me) more moderate then in other "western" countries simply because of where they come from?

[johnslat]

Dear arioch36,

"Personally, as someone who believes in jesus, I would object to seeing the crucifix displayed in a clasroom. But I like the idea of having the ten commandments displayed in the court rotunda in America. Hypocritical?'

Not "hypocritical", I'd say, but perhaps logically inconsistent. Having the ten commandments publicly displayed in government buildings/facilities
infringes, in my opinion, upon the "separation of church and state".

I hold to the belief that the First Amendment was intended to prohibit government from supporting or promoting religious beliefs or practices, even if that promotion favors no particular sect or religion. I'd say that the constitution prohibits government from favoring religion over non-religion, using tax dollars to underwrite religious activities, or requiring people to be exposed to religious practices in the course of everyday governmental activity. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. "

A display of the ten commandments would be, I think, a "wedge in the door", a starting down that "slippery slope". Having lived and worked for 19 years in a country, Saudi Arabia, which is essentially a theocracy, a place where "mosque and state" are NOT separate, I have no desire to see the USA head in that direction.
Regards,
John

[DAN SEBOLD]

I would like to be able to apply for a job in South Korea without being asked about my religious beliefs. When an employer like Younsei University in Wonju, without warning, after an interview wants you to fill out a Jesus questionare--fair enough if they want to give you warning in an ad before hand, but when you pay out the money for an interview, then suddenly get dumped on with what are your thoughts about Christianity. I am tired of it. Why don't they just say: "Non Christians need not apply" in their ad. This is a much more honest type of bigotry than the sneaky crapola I have been putting up with from Christians over the years.

[rogan]

French Law seperates all religions from State Institutions.
The Catholic and Jewish and Muslim Faiths operate Independent Schools - known as "The Priv�"

The fact that the Law seperates the State from The Churches does not mean that Politicians, Union Leaders and Bus Drivers cannot practice their Religions outside State Institutions.

Second and Third generation immigrants, or French Nationals, of any ethnicity are certainly free to practice their religions too - outside State Institutions.

As in any Democracy, if people do not like laws or politicians, they can work democratically to change those laws and politicians.

The law may be "a ass", but until the law is changed it is still "the best ass in town" !!

Bonne Rentree !