There is no freedom of religion if indoctrination starts from the earliest and most vulnerable age. This is what's really vile and bigoted here.
At least France's public school system aims to be a neutral ground free from this kind of influences
- See? Anyone can make unsubstantiated assertions. Ironically it's you who clearly misses the point by not understanding how the flipping exposes your flimsy and biased narrative. Anyone who visited a french school knows for a fact that it's anything but "neutral", rather actively hostile towards religion. Anything you asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Developped minds should make their own choices once in age to do so, that's the whole point.
Teaching kids agnosticism plus a good dose of Occam's Razor should be good until 16yo.
Everybody who doesn't live in a cave and learns about religion also quickly learns about critics of religion and thus becomes familiar with the position of atheists and agnostics.
Your take is in no way more special than the usual anti-theistic edgy rhetoric trying to pretend and maintain a false sense of "neutrality". Everyone who thinks that they are right on something will try to influence people towards their own worldview, implicitly or explicitly, hidden or obvious, anyone who claims otherwise is just lying to themselves and to others.
Some people claim that France and its school system are "neutral", but anyone who has visited a french school knows this to be untrue, it's clearly hostile towards, not only religion, but religious people.
As a French who went to french public schools, I take exception to that, as it is totally false and offensive.
France's egalitarian principles, on which public schools operate, respect people of all beliefs,
and history of religions is taught in schools from junior high.
Last time I checked the french people couldn't care less about something being 'offensive' or not, since it's covered by freedom of speech, that's why they constantly harass minorities by mocking them, their religion and prophets, all in the name of freedom of speech. Forcing girls to remove their hijab is evidence that it's your narrative that is biased and false. Justifying that discrimination is just further evidence of the internalized islamophobia, which has grown to such a degree that you don't even register blatant discrimination as such.
>France's egalitarian principles
Yea those 'egalitarian principles' that somehow only protect the secular elite, while minorities, using their religion against them, are constantly mocked and bullied in the media and discriminated against in targeted unfair laws - banning the hijab. Those 'egalitarian principles' have to manifest themselves in reality, but they didn't, up till now, they have only proven to be a charade.
Most french people take strongly to "Liberté Égalité Fraternité", and painting the whole country as hostile to minorities is extremely ignorant.
It is totally false to say that french freedom of speech permits to "constantly harass minorities by mocking them".
In fact our freedom of expression expressely forbids incitement to hatred. From wikipedia [2] : "Press Law of 1881 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one's origin or membership in an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group.A criminal code provision deems it an offense to engage in similar conduct via private communication"
However, satyre of ideas/symbols like religions and prophets is not the same thing as mocking people, and is an integral part of what we call laïcité.
You are missing the point that people, in their individuality as human beings, deserve respect but abstract concepts do not.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_France
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_raci...
My understanding of the french values is based on evidence, on the things I see and experience and based on the account of french citizens, reports and documented events throughout history.
> Most french people take strongly to "Liberté Égalité Fraternité", and painting the whole country as hostile to minorities is extremely ignorant.
Nothing but lip service, the evidence and daily realities paint a different picture. Again, you are just making assertions without substantiating them, name calling isn't making an argument. And yes, french society as I and many others have experienced is hostile to minorities and patronising on top of that. So you are the one who is extremely ignorant and have the audacity to project your own ignorance on others.
>It is totally false to say that french freedom of speech permits to "constantly harass minorities by mocking them".
Good, because I didn't say that it does permit it, I said that you do it under the guise of freedom of speech, totally different, among other bogus excuses.
>However, satyre of ideas/symbols like religions and prophets is not the same thing as mocking people, and is an integral part of what we call laïcité.
Spare me the hair splitting, insulting and mocking people's integral part of their identity is insulting them too. Furthermore there were cases when Charlie Hebdo Journalist was fired for being 'anti-semitic', while similar attacks on muslims were/are tolerated. There is clear cut islamophobia in french society and unfair application of laws regarding them. Don't insult people's intelligence with your weak vapid justifications.
> You are missing the point that people, in their individuality as human beings, deserve respect but abstract concepts do not.
No, you are missing the point, the amount of harassment under the guise of 'satire' with which secular elites constantly bully and harass minorities is what made french society so polarised and toxic to begin with:
"What the Charlie Hebdo caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad achieved was "not satire," and what they provoked was not "ideas," Finkelstein said.
Satire is when one directs it either at oneself, causes his or her people to think twice about what they are doing and saying, or directs it at people who have power and privilege, he said.
"But when somebody is down and out, desperate, destitute, when you mock them, when you mock a homeless person, that is not satire," Finkelstein said.
"That is, I give you the word, sadism. There’s a very big difference between satire and sadism. Charlie Hebdo is sadism. It’s not satire"
The "desperate and despised people" of today are Muslims, he said, considering the number of Muslim countries racked by death and destruction as in the case of Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen.
"So, two despairing and desperate young men act out their despair and desperation against this political pornography no different than Der Stürmer, who in the midst of all of this death and destruction decide its somehow noble to degrade, demean, humiliate and insult the people. I’m sorry, maybe it is very politically incorrect. I have no sympathy for [the staff of Charlie Hebdo]. Should they have been killed? Of course not. But of course, Streicher shouldn’t have been hung. I don’t hear that from many people," said Finkelstein.
Streicher was among those who stood trial on charges at Nürnberg, following World War II. He was hung for those cartoons.
Finkelstein said some might argue that they have the right to mock even desperate and destitute people, and they probably have this right, he said, "But you also have the right to say 'I don’t want to put it in my magazine ... When you put it in, you are taking responsibility for it."
Finkelstein compared the controversial Charlie Hebdo caricatures to the "fighting words," doctrine, a category of speech penalized under American jurisprudence."
This is flirting with integrism.
If religion was really an integral part of people's identity, apostasy would not be a thing. This is telling that it's cause of death penalty for religious extremists.
Out of all points made you pick a single one out and make rubbish arguments. You are not worth my time.
Genuinely voluntary apostasy, punished by death, happens. And it's clearly 'not succumbing to social pressure' to do it in countries that criminalize it and punish it by death.[1]
And then you replace 'integral part of your identity' by merely 'part of your identity', however that's the important word you're omitting.
When I was younger I liked some styles of music and felt them part of my identity too. Some used to mock and critisize them, and now that my tastes changed, I can see why.
However, particular musical genres were never an integral part of my identity the same way people are gay or not, or have a particular ethnical background.
Attributing some special powers to a class of mere opinions is wrong, misguided and often used as a tool of oppression.[2]
Says the guy who responds to a fraction of the arguments and makes absurd arguments expecting to be taken seriously.
>Genuinely voluntary apostasy, punished by death, happens. And it's clearly 'not succumbing to social pressure' to do it in countries that criminalize it and punish it by death.[1]
What the hell are you even on about? You make 0 sense. You were talking about apostasy and I merely explained that it's nothing out of the ordinary that people can succumb to social pressure and change their identity, this was very specific in the context of french society. So spare me your islamophobic rants.
>And then you replace 'integral part of your identity' by merely 'part of your identity', however that's the important word you're omitting.
So? You clearly don't understand the english language very well. Integral merely means "important, essential..." and leaving it out doesn't change the essence of the statement. Keep hairsplitting tho.
>However, particular musical genres were never an integral part of my identity the same way people are gay or not, or have a particular ethnical background.
Terrible comparison. A taste in music is not the same thing as a religion which encompasses almost every aspect of your life. Again, terrible terrible comparison.
>Attributing some special powers to a class of mere opinions is wrong, misguided and often used as a tool of oppression.
Yea, you just perfectly described France's abuse and misuse of 'satire' and 'free speech' to discriminate against minorities. France has its own blasphemy laws, although they don't label them as such, they are functionally and consequentially, the exact same. Not to mention what secular France has done in its colonial past, murdering and torturing millions of Algerians and Africans for resisting occupation and opposing secularism. Learn your own history and present before you try to lecture others.
The fact that apostasy is possible and exists, in France or elsewhere, is precisely the proof that religion is not 'essential' (to use your own prefered word) to a person's identity. I'll let you look up what "essential" means, it's perfect in this context.
That makes religion far more similar to musical taste (ever heard of Rock'n Roll as a way of life?) than to ethnicity.
By the way, accusing people who criticise the barbary of blasphemy & anti-apostasy laws of islamophobia is a cheap move but quite typical.
Straw man. No one denied that apostasy is possible and exists. The claim was that for some religion can be an integral part of their identity and it's also possible that people can change their identities for various reasons including societal pressure, the desire to fit in or any other reason. That doesn't change the fact that religion is an integral part of some people's identity.
>That makes religion far more similar to musical taste (ever heard of Rock'n Roll as a way of life?) than to ethnicity.
Religion is a set of rules and guidelines to live by, so that comparison is moot, but keep pushing absurd arguments to justify your rubbish takes.
Anyway, you ignore and distort arguments beyond recognition and keep babbling utter nonsense. You are a lost cause, so we are done here, have fun debating yourself.
By the way, distracting people who criticise the barbary of the french abuse of satire & free speech laws with blasphemy laws is a cheap move but quite typical.
But I realized you're most likely just a troll. My bad.
Chances are, you're even just a secondary account of jedimind, seeing how you apparently have a habit of intervening at his rescue on other discussions, use the same pattern of purposefully missing the point, name calling and parroting the person you are responding to instead of being relevant.
It is telling though to see how you kept avoiding the concept that by apostasy I was referring to the honest personal choice of people renouncing their religion for intellectual honesty (someday they believe then, maybe after self debating the absurdity of the idea, they don't anymore), but you kept insisting instead that it must be because someone or something forces them to. It really shows how narrow minded you must be.
Keep to your fascist trolling if that pleases you, your moral values are not on the right side of history.
Blasphemy laws and similar barbaric values have been successfully fought and repealed in France (that you seem to despise so much) and other countries, they will eventually be everywhere else too.
By a simple InTeLlEcTuAl pRoCeSs, again, since you lack basic reading comprehension skills, for some people religion is an integral part of their identity, that's not even up to debate. Something can be an integral part of your identity and still change for various reasons, nothing of that will change the fact that it is an integral part of some people's identity. Your embarrassing attempts to defend your absurd claim is just pure comedy.
>But I realized you're most likely just a troll. My bad.
Says the guy who desperately clings to 1 of the many arguments that were made ignoring all others and is not even able to make sense on that front. Embarrassing.
>It is telling though to see how you kept avoiding the concept that by apostasy I was referring to the honest personal choice of people renouncing their religion for intellectual honesty (someday they believe then, maybe after self debating the absurdity of the idea, they don't anymore), but you kept insisting instead that it must be because someone or something forces them to. It really shows how narrow minded you must be.
You are heavily misquoting and distorting yet again. I said that apostasy can occur for various reasons many times, yet you make this completely bizarre and far fetched case just to inflate your terribly false argument.
>Keep to your fascist trolling if that pleases you, your moral values are not on the right side of history.
Says the guy who defends french fascism and persecution of minorities based on fake french values, which only serve the secular elite. The barbary of french colonialism continues, after murdering millions of Algerians and Africans and force their secularism on them, now they try to intellectualise their oppression. France even betrayed the jews and cooperated with the Nazis, delivered them to be murdered, so don't ever talk about being on the right side of history, you never were and never will be.
>Blasphemy laws and similar barbaric values have been successfully fought and repealed in France (that you seem to despise so much) and other countries, they will eventually be everywhere else too.
Nope, wrong. France and its barbaric values are still present in its own blasphemy laws which prohibits denigrating the french flag among other deceptions to not respect its own values, thus violating free speech, but everyone already knows that france has only fake free speech, protecting the rich secular people, but not minorities.