On the theme of Racism.....

[The Famous Grouse]

I do feel political correctness has gone too far and the balance should be re-adressed..Back to the French minister..The banning of headscarves does affect Muslim’s greatly as its part of their ways and traditions, a Christian can go home and see a cross, a Muslim female must always wear one. I feel an out-right ban on all religious articles is stupid.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The French constitution is committed to the concept of a secular state. The French are at least being consistent about their constitution. They give equal citizenship rights to all of their people.

Insofar as we have any sort of constitution, it is committed to the concept of the head of state being the head of the Church of England.

I find it offensive that my country denies the right of people from my background to marry into the ruling family. Not that I personally have ever wanted to, but that's not the point.

Don't get the idea that we are more liberal about these things in the UK. We simply endure discrimination differently from what prevails in France.

 

[Wilko]

I get the impression that some people on here state what they feel is the politically correct answer rather than how they really feel. There is supposed shock and outrage to the comments made by the french minister but in actual fact I am sure many on here secretly wish that this country took a slightly more robust initiative to problems as opposed to being viewed as Europes softspot.

Banning religious articles of one religion would be unfair but surely restricting this to ALL religions in an attempt to increase the peace and cut down apathy and disdain towards others is surely a positive step.

Let us not forgot that religion itself is quite possibly the most prominant factor in causing world disturbances throughout.

 

[chips and gravy]

I am not religious at all. In fact I would rather there was no religion but saying that is the most prominent factor in causing world disturbances is wide of the mark. These are caused by people using religion as an excuse to further their hunger for power. Not the same thing at all.

 

[Simster]

I find it offensive that my country denies the right of people from my background to marry into the ruling family. Not that I personally have ever wanted to, but that's not the point.

Ahem. They reign, they don't rule. But I do agree with your sentiments.

I think the French are right on this one, but would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that this is nothing more than a gimmic and a sop to French voters who are increasingly paranoid over the threat of an islamic revolution on their own doorstep?

 

[Wilko]

I am not religious at all. In fact I would rather there was no religion but saying that is the most prominent factor in causing world disturbances is wide of the mark. These are caused by people using religion as an excuse to further their hunger for power. Not the same thing at all.

ok,, good point, but surely religion has been a catalyst for many a world disturbance, certainly an underpining factor for conflict?

 

[The Famous Grouse]

but surely religion has been a catalyst for many a world disturbance, certainly an underpinning factor for conflict?

Religions has also given hope, drive and kept many peoples sanity in dire situations...

 

[Wilko]

but surely religion has been a catalyst for many a world disturbance, certainly an underpinning factor for conflict?

Religions has also given hope, drive and kept many peoples sanity in dire situations...

I would argue it offers a false hope, all part of the problem but I do not really want to get into a religeous debate. I attended a roman catholic school and had enough of brainwashing !

 

[Goring Gull]

On the subject of rascism, The English get labelled with this rascist tag but i think we are one of the most tolerant nations going considering. To be honest whats the point in being rascist as long as people live in the country and work for a living i don't have a problem it's all the scum British or otherwise how sit about on their arses all day then go out commiting crimes etc etc who should be dealt with.

 

[Curious Orange]

Hmmm, an interesting debate. For what it's worth I don't believe that schools should be allowed to have a religious focus at all, children shouldn't be taught things as truth that blatantly aren't. I do believe that the culture of religions should be taught however, as the moral framework behind most of them is broadly the same, and presents a useful tool for many people to structure their lives.

I suspect the main reason for the fuss is because the word 'Muslim' is involved, I think certain sections of society are needlessly worried about annoying them, purely because of the actions of a minority, and everything that is going on down in the Gulf. But I think that that is our problem and not necessarily one that the French have, they always do exactly what they want to anyway, which is a strength they have.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

It's easy to argue this one from either perspective: liberal, religion-friendly PC versus absolutist, leave that-stuff-at-home secular conformity.

But an illustrative, NSC-relevant clincher for me is this: would it help or hinder classroom harmony and learning in, say, Crawley if Albion kids and Palace kids exercised an imagined 'right' to wear their colours in the classroom at all times? Surely, their football allegiances would be totally irrelevant in that context and should be left at home.

So, why should religious parents feel entitled to use their kids as permanent advertising billboards? Think about it: if there really was only the one single, all-powerful god, why would he care a flying ayatollah which particular strip his supporters wore? Surely, that sort of thing can best be taken care of in the much vaunted afterlife.

And finally: enforced hijab wearing is actually a recent phenomenon. (Enforced, as ever, by those uptight men who have always invented and run all the world's religions for their own benefit and against women's interests.) A few decades ago, it was totally unknown.


Allez France!

 

[Wilko]

It's easy to argue this one from either perspective: liberal, religion-friendly PC versus absolutist, leave that-stuff-at-home secular conformity.

But an illustrative, NSC-relevant clincher for me is this: would it help or hinder classroom harmony and learning in, say, Crawley if Albion kids and Palace kids exercised an imagined 'right' to wear their colours in the classroom at all times? Surely, their football allegiances would be totally irrelevant in that context and should be left at home.

So, why should religious parents feel entitled to use their kids as permanent advertising billboards? Think about it: if there really was only the one single, all-powerful god, why would he care a flying ayatollah which particular strip his supporters wore? Surely, that sort of thing can best be taken care of in the much vaunted afterlife.

And finally: enforced hijab wearing is actually a recent phenomenon. (Enforced, as ever, by those uptight men who have always invented and run all the world's religions for their own benefit and against women's interests.) A few decades ago, it was totally unknown.


Allez France!

Excellent post

 

[Donny Osmond]

The turban exception for the crash helmet law has always struck me as ridiculous. Can't anyone make crash helmets that would fit over a turban anyway?

Del Boy got it right.
Trotters crash turbans!

 

[Lord Cornwallis]

IMHO, when in Rome.
I don't agree with some of the things inforced here in America, but all the time I'm here I have to respect them or piss off back where I came from.
And people in Bethnal Green should be made to get their curly side burns cut.

 

[NMH]

I'm all for celebrating cultural differences and variety. However, this is ok as long as the culturally various do not hinder or exclude while living amongst, and respect and behave according to the simple rules of their adopted country, or get out - and read up a bit before they go assuming they can do anything they please.

Apparently (and according to some historic articles I read up on) before WWII, the Jews tended to be secular and exclusionary within Germany, preferring to do active business only among their own religion. This was in a repressed and shamed land that was cowed by losing WW1, and exorcised from international freedom, defence, and trade by the victors. It probably exacerbated the feeling rising within the German populace to rebel against their repressions and exclusions - and an intense racism was stirred up by a leader they embraced for his passion, anger and intent to regain national pride and prosperity.
We now know his solutions were sadly undiplomatic and fearsome, and he was consumed by personal demons that ultimately lost vision, compassion, and another war for his people.

Political correctness has to be carefully measured and with some sensible allowances for an ever-changing World.

 

[Dandyman]

I'm all for celebrating cultural differences and variety. However, this is ok as long as the culturally various do not hinder or exclude while living amongst, and respect and behave according to the simple rules of their adopted country, or get out - and read up a bit before they go assuming they can do anything they please.

Apparently (and according to some historic articles I read up on) before WWII, the Jews tended to be secular and exclusionary within Germany, preferring to do active business only among their own religion. This was in a repressed and shamed land that was cowed by losing WW1, and exorcised from international freedom, defence, and trade by the victors. It probably exacerbated the feeling rising within the German populace to rebel against their repressions and exclusions - and an intense racism was stirred up by a leader they embraced for his passion, anger and intent to regain national pride and prosperity.
We now know his solutions were sadly undiplomatic and fearsome, and he was consumed by personal demons that ultimately lost vision, compassion, and another war for his people.

Political correctness has to be carefully measured and with some sensible allowances for an ever-changing World.

I'd like to know your sources for that. German Jews were one of the most assimilated populations in Europe. I am unaware of any evidence that the bulk of Jews sought to distance themselves from the wider population, until the Nazi race laws outlawed them from earning a living in their usual occupations.

By way of example the inter-war german film industry, science and arts all had many prominent jewish workers.

 

[NMH]

Simply the newspapers Dandy, often also depicting a monstrous view of that group, even in their cartoons! Indeed many German Jews were leading members of that society, even campaigning and working for Adolph Hitler before things blew up.
It could be seen to invite trouble too, when you have a religion that you are born into but it isn't necessary to practise religion to be called a Jew - plus they weren't supposed to inter-marry but it's ok to have sex outside of the group.

I wonder why Hitler despised the Jews, if they integrated with Germans socially so well and were so good at assimilating?

No Dandy, secular behaviour invites hatred and oppression, even if you or I cannot relate to that.
In modern times you don't have to live by "when in Rome do as the Romans do" since there is freedom of religion and freedom to do business with whoever you prefer.
The Japanese in USA were rounded up and put into prison camps too in WWII, and they might level an embittered attitude at America for racial segregation too.
You could also feel resentment and disquiet growing towards all Arabic peoples after 9/11, and that certainly wasn't justified by the actions of a few suicidal Saudis now was it?

 

[Guinness Boy]

I'm totally with the French here. It's a secular society and they have every bit as much right to enforce that as an Islamic state does to make you cover up and have women walking one pace behind their menfolk.

Over here my (Western) missus would get stared at if she wore a sleeveless top as it's not done, whilst people with visas are required to carry a foreigners ID card. Result? She doesn't wear her sleeveless tops and I've got an ID card and everyone's happy.

 

[Yorkie]

And finally: enforced hijab wearing is actually a recent phenomenon. (Enforced, as ever, by those uptight men who have always invented and run all the world's religions for their own benefit and against women's interests.) A few decades ago, it was totally unknown.

I am puzzled by this. By the word hijab are you referring to the head covering or the full purdah that some Arab women wear?

Wearing of head coverings is not actually a Muslim thing. If you visit Lebanon or Israel for example you will see many women covering their hair.
In fact, at one stage here in the UK, women were expected to wear hats (or in the Roman church, a veil) right up to the 1960's.

A lot of these women are, in fact, Christian. It is a cultural thing that women from the Middle East cover their hair because of modesty.
The vast majority of immigrants that wear them now are Muslim and that is how it has been perceived.

It is a modesty issue not a religious issue.