Hi friends of think atheist,
You definitely have heard of this news last Monday..
France Enforces Ban on Full-Face Veils in Public.
Sorry if this has been discussed before...but It's important to hear the atheists opinion on this matter.
VÉNISSIEUX, France — France on Monday formally banned the wearing of full veils in public places, becoming the first country in Europe to impose restrictions on a form of attire that some Muslims consider a religious obligation.
read more here
I'm very interested in hearing people's opinion's on the ban..
So, what do you think?
To quote yourself: "Rights do not override each other."
That was the premise of your initial claim and is what you used to get to the conclusion.
Then you moved on to "Rights do have limitations - other Rights." An exact revarsal of your own argument (which was incidentally the same presented by Kris' and me). If you agree with the premise we present you must accept the conclusion that it brings or attack the weaknesses in our argument. You cannot hijack it and turn it into an argument for your own position without first showing where we have stepped wrong. You are now essentially arguing against yourself.
Welcome to our side :)
Yes, but as I mentioned previously, the Article does not only have the protection of but also the protection from religious practice. Wearing a religious garment is clearly protected, but so is the protection from seeing it. Generally religion is given the upper hand, but in this professional situation, in an organization which by it's very definition necessitates it being secular, freedom from religion must reign.
Again, argument does not support conclusion and you must find new ones to proceed.
The text WOULD have been previously established had you actually posted it or a link to it as requested. As it stands, however, up until this moment I have just been taking your word for what it says.
Now that I read it though, I am concerned that islam might be a violation of the freedom to change religion. I do believe that the Qu'ran states that Muslims who refute Islam should be killed - have you ever heard anything about this? If it is true, then shouldn't that really throw into question just how free people should be to practice that religion?
I'm sorry if I am not keeping the details straight for 1 of 135 replies in this thread. I sort of thought this was about how we each felt on the ban in France. I felt Judith's response was a poignant illustration of how complex the issue could become for some people and I told her so. Then the next thing I know you jumped in here suggesting that she's waving some sort of disability pass and that she's some sort of bigot or something. Just to be clear on this matter, I think you are beating a dead horse.
Now, if you want to fully hijack and refocus the discussion, why don't you go back and make a reply to Judith's original post so we can get our ducks all in a row here?
@Jared: You addressed my examples without addressing my point. The examples were obviously chosen to make it clear that the point in general was irrefutable. The point was that religious freedoms are subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions.
And, in fact, the UDHR agrees with my point.
Article 29 of the UDHR states in part 2 thereof: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
As Kris correctly pointed out, you have presented a false dichotomy. The choice is not between religious freedom and complete disrespect of religious freedom.
"This law will end up in court"
I also see this as highly likely, and there is a chance it might be repealed. But religion can still be banned from classrooms and a number of other areas, it all depend on how willing we are to ban religion. And the ultimate goal is the dismantlig of religion.
And to answer your inevitable counter: "Dismantle religion?! You intolerant bastard! Human rights guarantee the right of religion."
They do, but the overarching principle of the rights is the abolition of anything which is bad for humanity. Religion is bad for humanity, its whole history speaks to that. More bad than good has come out of religion, and those are the things the human rights are attempting to remedy by creating certain basic rules we think create behavior conducive to the peace and happiness of everyone.
You speak of the human rights as being some kind of legislature, but they are not. Those who break laws get judged, where as the UN condemnes. The terminology is different. And seeing as religion is bad, it should be condemned, but as long as we condone it, we need to curtail it (by giving everyone also all the other rights). The end justify the means. (And no, I do not feel like having a discussion on your feelings regarding the field of consequencialism.)
And that makes them right because..?
You are discussing the physical institutions of courts. I am discussing their philosophical underpinnings. Why murder is bad is unrelated to it's penalties. On occation, we deal out no penalties when one person has killed another, but it doesn't make one person killing another one a good thing to do under any circumstance.
The courts may uphold the law that we should not suppress religion, but that is completely unrelated to the question of religion being good or bad. Judges don't make law, they interpret it. We make laws, generally through the leaders we choose.
And so ends today's civics lesson.
By the by, for those interested, here is a link to the full UDHR: