156 MILLION DEAD CANT BE ALL THAT WRONG!

[TMA_1]

Also, I think God would have been against the nazis no matter which particular people they decided to slaughter. God disaproves of ALL murder and genocide.

Well I figured that would be a given, you must understand though from reading the scriptures that God hold's a special place in his (words of accomidation) heart towards his chosen people. God specifically blesses israel above other nations, and even appoints over them Michael the archangel as protector. Of course this is my interpritation of the bible, and certain extrabiblical hebrew writings I hold as truth. I do not wish for anybody to be offended by the things said above.

Of course All are God's people, all created specifically for important causes. And killing one person is as evil as killing a thousand. I hope you didnt think I somehow implied that, if so its my fault, I have a problem with communicating via chatting, it is a pretty bad medium at times.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, is there a difference, when state follows ideology of secular humanism or a communism? For me not, it's just a matter of time until it starts a pressure on other ideologies.

It's hard to see the difference between modern ideologies when you're still stuck in the Dark Ages, Caid.

Dark ages have just ended - with fall of your twisted ideology in 1989. It's hard to forget them, when he have still lurking zombies like you...

[Edric O]

See, what did I tell you? You can't even make the difference between modern communists and old stalinist nostalgics.

[Caid Ivik]

And you don't do so between christian democrats and fascists...

[Edric O]

What are you talking about? When did I ever call you a fascist? When did I call any christian democrat a fascist?

You, on the other hand, compare me with the stalinists on a daily basis...

[mordusxxx]

u guys really got off subject lol, well my opinion to this thread is really that o country can do what it wants no matter what, if the people or the govt. want to ban religion or and sort of religion in school then thats there choice, this subject is not about dictators or rulers its about peoples free will to act the way there mind wants them to, and all this is, is just another thread to prove something way off hand rather then why doesnt France want there people to have religion in there school systems, if anyone agrees feel free to respond but if not then plz dont spam me for speaking my opinion thanks ;)

[SurlyPIG]

France's laws bug me. As if it wasn't bad enough that they're the only modern country that presumes criminal suspects guilty until proven innocent, now this? Yeesh. Putrid. Just pathetically putrid. Being an atheist, my disgust might be surprising, but an ally turned of fear wields a double-edged sword...

If I were French, I'd be mighty pissed off (well, first I would move, but then I'd be pissed off).

[Caid Ivik]

Exactly, Ace, exactly ;D

[Dude_Doc]

But I do not understand the reason for the new laws. It would be obvious if Chirac only banned Christian or Muslim symbols, but ban all? What does anyone gain on it?

[Acriku]

Everyone. Atleast, in Chirac's eyes.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Religion should be done outside of the educational facilities or in the 'cough' temples.

I'm neutral between Atheism and Religion

Wouldn't it be disturbing if everyone starts wearing hats or accessories of their religion?

[Dude_Doc]

We already have that in Sweden, Kirov, so don't worry.

[Anathema]

they're the only modern country that presumes criminal suspects guilty until proven innocent

I never heard of this, plus such a policy is a violation of the European Treaty of Human Rights, and the innocent till proven guilty rule is written down in French law. So I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass till you can back up this up.

Anyway, freedom of religion includes the freedom to express it. Government officials however should not be allowed to express their religion while acting on behalf of the state.

[Sneakgab]

Very strange thing and/or way to pull one out of one's @$$ ??? Usually !$$ pulling is used in convincing (to the uninformed,e.t.c) and subtle (to the non-meticulous) ways.

Either ACE is unskilled in the art of a sort of advanced, subtle propoganda used often here to assist what otherwise would be a credible argument, or he has simply fell victim to a similar to an expert of such an art...

Knowing Ace I suspect the latter, although most would expect the above meticulousness from him...

[SurlyPIG]

I never heard of this, plus such a policy is a violation of the European Treaty of Human Rights, and the innocent till proven guilty rule is written down in French law. So I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass till you can back up this up.

It was my social studies teacher who said this, and being French himself I assumed he would know better than I. He's not the type of guy who would pull your leg, so I guess he was exaggerating in some way. I took his words literally but perhaps it's really something like a combo of not needing arrest warrants and clogged up courts leading to excessive jail time for the falsely accused. Regardless of what he meant, his brother spent almost a year in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Whether a trial was pending or in progress during that time, I don't know.

[Wolf]

I'm kind of outta the loop due to the holiday, so my post might be a little off-topic. Guys, just remember that a lot of American, British, Canadian, and French soldiers died to liberate France. Is this an expression of the freedoms that were earned, or is this the destruction of them? I think we have to debate whether or not France's laws are an expression of the democratic freedoms that many thousands of many lands died to provide them with, or if France's laws are a restriction of those same freedoms.

What made me think of this was a quote by Barbara Kingsolver. She was talking about the crosses all across northern France from D-Day. It occured to me that those men died for the liberation of the country in question, and is not the cross a symbol of the religious faith of the soldier that died? Would France have all the crosses torn up and replaced with simple rectangles, so that no one's religious belief is offended?

EDIT: I mean, come on, guys, be consistent! If you want religion banned from schools and public places, why not go ALL THE WAY! Ban religion in general. At least then others would not be able to accuse you of hypocrisy!

[nemafakei]

I wonder if priests would be allowed to wear their vestements (which are definitely religious symbols) in their workplace?

[SurlyPIG]

Apparently, minor symbols of religion are permissible, but I don't know what minor is supposed to mean and I doubt anybody else can say.  Religious symbols of varying meaning and exuberance are all over the place, and banning some of them is going to be a hellacious undertaking (excuse the pun).  Even a something like a Santa hat could be considered a religious symbol.

[thomas]

It's a stupid law because some people are required to wear a speacial headdress (orthadox Jews for example) and preventing them from doing so while in school is very bad for them religion wise for they are breaking their religions laws

[DukeLeto]

But history shows that secularism in the last 100 years is responsible for more deaths than all religions combined over the last 1000 years.

156 million dead in the name of atheistic secularism!

I'm still wondering where he got that piece of total bullsh*t.

Edit: Oh I see, he's saying that every civillian killed by their government in the last 100 years was the fault of athiesm?  Let's break down that chart:

(taken form his "reference", here)

Soviet Union (Communists) 61,900,000 - Yeah, ok, no one's denying that the Soviets were nasty people.

1917-1990

China (Communists) 35,200,000 - The chinese do NOT force their citiens to be athiests, or anything else for that matter

1949-present

Germany (Nazi Third Reich) 20,900,000 - Those were Christians, dumb*ss

1933-1945

China (Kuomintang) 10,400,000 - Um, what?  Same story as "China".

1928-1949

Japan (Imperial-Fascist) 6,000,000 - Shintos, not athiests.  big difference.

1936-1945

China (Communist Guerrillas) 3,500,000 - Ok, why is this even included?  That wasn't a governement!

1923-1948

Cambodia (Communists) 2,000,000 - See "China"

1975-1979

Turkey ("Young Turks") 1,900,000 - Not really sure, but it's a safe bet those were Islamics

1909-1917

Vietnam (Communists) 1,700,000 -See "China"

1945-present

North Korea (Communists) 1,700,000 - See...you guessed it, "China"

1948-present

Poland (Communists) 1,600,000 - Err, that was part of the Soviet Unon, was it not?

1945-1948

Pakistan (Yahya Khan) 1,500,000 - Islamics

1971

Mexico (Porfiriato) 1,400,000 - Not really certain...

1900-1920

Yugoslavia (Communists) 1,100,000 - Part of the USSR again

1944-1990

Russia (Czarist) 1,100,000 - Czarist Russia was primarily Christian, wasn't it?

1900-1917

Turkey (Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk") 900,000 - Islamics again

1918-1923

United Kingdom (Constitutional) 800,000 - What?  Now I know you're making things up.

1900-present

Portugal (Fascist) 700,000 - Christians again

1926-1975

[thomas]

third reich wasn't christian hitler dispised christianity because jesus was a jew.

[Atomic Mitten]

Actually the third reich and the SS were christians, their own form of it, but none the less,christians.

[thomas]

their own form was more of a cult though but yes still christian none of the less

[Dude_Doc]

One point only Leto, Yugoslavia was not a part of the Soviet Union, they were their own communists. However, they were communists hehe...

[Sneakgab]

Until some info arrives on how exactly the laws in France regarding the banning of worn religious items,e.t.c, this is probably not going anywhere soon