Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Please Wear Your Crucifix

Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2018 3:47:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

Well which is it are they delusional or lying?

If a man tells you he can fly you don't call him a liar you just keep him away from ledges.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Casten
Posts: 2,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 2:08:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Presumably the French don't want government and education officials displaying symbols of bias while at their jobs, which require them to present a degree of objectivity. The workplace is not about free personal expression.

Are you saying there should be a rule that says any religious educator or official must display a sign of their religious affiliation? Or merely that there should be no rule prohibiting such displays?
Bummed about the low activity and abandonment of DDO? You can always try us on DART: https://www.debateart.com...
Harikrish
Posts: 38,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 2:57:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?
I don't think a crucifix would be a good choice. A lot of people wear crucifix necklaces, or tatoos strictly for cosmetic or image reasons. Like Ozzie Osbourne.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 6:50:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2018 3:47:20 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

Well which is it are they delusional or lying?
It may be out of my realm of expertise to properly answer that.
From my observation, lying is a by-product of delusion in that the subject will tend to lie his way out of a situation by which delusion was the cause.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 7:12:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
Probably. I think it is also a throwback to the French revolution combined with the overwhelmingly diverse cultures and religions from a large immigrant multicultural population.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 7:15:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 2:57:32 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?
I don't think a crucifix would be a good choice. A lot of people wear crucifix necklaces, or tatoos strictly for cosmetic or image reasons. Like Ozzie Osbourne.
See, it works, doesn't it?

Anyone not knowing Ozzie would see the crucifix and keep well away from him.

("Sharon, Sharon, those bleeding DDO bast*rds are having a f**king go at me again.")
ethang5
Posts: 22,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 7:25:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 2:08:20 AM, Casten wrote:
Presumably the French don't want government and education officials displaying symbols of bias while at their jobs, which require them to present a degree of objectivity. The workplace is not about free personal expression.

Are you saying there should be a rule that says any religious educator or official must display a sign of their religious affiliation?

I remember that Hitler required something similar of Jews in Germany in the 1940's. Willows would have approved.

Or merely that there should be no rule prohibiting such displays?
Jamahoo
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 9:51:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 7:25:40 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:08:20 AM, Casten wrote:
Presumably the French don't want government and education officials displaying symbols of bias while at their jobs, which require them to present a degree of objectivity. The workplace is not about free personal expression.

Are you saying there should be a rule that says any religious educator or official must display a sign of their religious affiliation?

I remember that Hitler required something similar of Jews in Germany in the 1940's. Willows would have approved.

+1

Or merely that there should be no rule prohibiting such displays?
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 12:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 7:25:40 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:08:20 AM, Casten wrote:
Presumably the French don't want government and education officials displaying symbols of bias while at their jobs, which require them to present a degree of objectivity. The workplace is not about free personal expression.

Are you saying there should be a rule that says any religious educator or official must display a sign of their religious affiliation?

I remember that Hitler required something similar of Jews in Germany in the 1940's. Willows would have approved.
Not really, Religious followers freely wish to brand themselves as idiots anyway by wearing crosses.
Casten
Posts: 2,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 2:14:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 7:25:40 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:08:20 AM, Casten wrote:
Presumably the French don't want government and education officials displaying symbols of bias while at their jobs, which require them to present a degree of objectivity. The workplace is not about free personal expression.

Are you saying there should be a rule that says any religious educator or official must display a sign of their religious affiliation?

I remember that Hitler required something similar of Jews in Germany in the 1940's. Willows would have approved.

Or merely that there should be no rule prohibiting such displays?

That was the first thing that sprang to my mind also, but I try not to be too quick to invoke Holocaust comparisons.
Bummed about the low activity and abandonment of DDO? You can always try us on DART: https://www.debateart.com...
Harikrish
Posts: 38,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 3:16:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 7:12:11 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
Probably. I think it is also a throwback to the French revolution combined with the overwhelmingly diverse cultures and religions from a large immigrant multicultural population.

But the French are Catholics and wear send worship the crucifix. They shouldn't be allowed to carry or wear it because that too would be paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents in public.
Harikrish
Posts: 38,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 3:17:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 3:16:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:12:11 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
Probably. I think it is also a throwback to the French revolution combined with the overwhelmingly diverse cultures and religions from a large immigrant multicultural population.

Sorry typo.

But the French are Catholics and wear and worship the crucifix. They shouldn't be allowed to carry or wear it because that too would be paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents in public.
Skepticalone
Posts: 8,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 4:56:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

I don't agree with it. I think people should have the freedom to express their beliefs, and so long as religious emblems are not made to look like part of an official uniform I don't see an issue. On the other hand, forcing people to wear religious emblems is the opposite of this.
Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 5:29:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 4:56:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

I don't agree with it. I think people should have the freedom to express their beliefs, and so long as religious emblems are not made to look like part of an official uniform I don't see an issue. On the other hand, forcing people to wear religious emblems is the opposite of this.

Well, to play the district attorney, wouldn't it be kind of ideal to know that you're about to encounter one of those (or us) crazy religionists?

How about bells? That's not religious as a production, but it would definitely let one know a bible thumper is near by.
ethang5
Posts: 22,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 6:31:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 12:14:45 PM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:25:40 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:08:20 AM, Casten wrote:
Presumably the French don't want government and education officials displaying symbols of bias while at their jobs, which require them to present a degree of objectivity. The workplace is not about free personal expression.

Are you saying there should be a rule that says any religious educator or official must display a sign of their religious affiliation?

I remember that Hitler required something similar of Jews in Germany in the 1940's. Willows would have approved.
Not really, Religious followers freely wish to brand themselves as idiots anyway by wearing crosses.

I don't wear one. But you want to force me to. You are proposing exactly what Hitler did.

Now I know you are ignorant of history so you didn't know you were channeling Hitler. But were you in hitler's Germany, you would have approved.
ethang5
Posts: 22,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 6:34:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 2:14:54 PM, Casten wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:25:40 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:08:20 AM, Casten wrote:
Presumably the French don't want government and education officials displaying symbols of bias while at their jobs, which require them to present a degree of objectivity. The workplace is not about free personal expression.

Are you saying there should be a rule that says any religious educator or official must display a sign of their religious affiliation?

I remember that Hitler required something similar of Jews in Germany in the 1940's. Willows would have approved.

Or merely that there should be no rule prohibiting such displays?

That was the first thing that sprang to my mind also, but I try not to be too quick to invoke Holocaust comparisons.

I'm quicker than you then. That is how these things begin. Just one person suggesting it, not evil, but sincerely believing he's doing good.
Skepticalone
Posts: 8,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 7:38:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 5:29:56 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:56:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

I don't agree with it. I think people should have the freedom to express their beliefs, and so long as religious emblems are not made to look like part of an official uniform I don't see an issue. On the other hand, forcing people to wear religious emblems is the opposite of this.

Well, to play the district attorney, wouldn't it be kind of ideal to know that you're about to encounter one of those (or us) crazy religionists?

How about bells? That's not religious as a production, but it would definitely let one know a bible thumper is near by.

I take it you're being facetious?
Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 11:50:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 3:16:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:12:11 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
Probably. I think it is also a throwback to the French revolution combined with the overwhelmingly diverse cultures and religions from a large immigrant multicultural population.

But the French are Catholics and wear send worship the crucifix. They shouldn't be allowed to carry or wear it because that too would be paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents in public.

Derrrrr, yeah, like um, that was the thrust of my OP. The French are not Catholics anyway, any more than they are Muslim or Jewish, they are secular.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 12:00:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 4:56:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

I don't agree with it. I think people should have the freedom to express their beliefs, and so long as religious emblems are not made to look like part of an official uniform I don't see an issue. On the other hand, forcing people to wear religious emblems is the opposite of this.
I think that most deluded religious followers are egotistical enough that they don't need to be told to wear their paraphernalia. Failing that, I find that with Christians in particular, you can pick them out by the forced smiles on their dials.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 12:05:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 6:31:38 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/23/2018 12:14:45 PM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:25:40 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:08:20 AM, Casten wrote:
Presumably the French don't want government and education officials displaying symbols of bias while at their jobs, which require them to present a degree of objectivity. The workplace is not about free personal expression.

Are you saying there should be a rule that says any religious educator or official must display a sign of their religious affiliation?

I remember that Hitler required something similar of Jews in Germany in the 1940's. Willows would have approved.
Not really, Religious followers freely wish to brand themselves as idiots anyway by wearing crosses.

I don't wear one. But you want to force me to. You are proposing exactly what Hitler did.

Now I know you are ignorant of history so you didn't know you were channeling Hitler. But were you in hitler's Germany, you would have approved.
I didn't say anything about forcing deluded God followers from wearing their paraphernalia.
As it happens, most of them are so head-swollen that they would wear their chains and crosses anyway. Otherwise, it is easy to pick them out from the forced smiles on their dials.
Normal people would then know to look up at the sky and whistle as they walk past.
Harikrish
Posts: 38,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 12:06:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 11:50:34 PM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 3:16:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:12:11 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
Probably. I think it is also a throwback to the French revolution combined with the overwhelmingly diverse cultures and religions from a large immigrant multicultural population.

But the French are Catholics and wear send worship the crucifix. They shouldn't be allowed to carry or wear it because that too would be paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents in public.

Derrrrr, yeah, like um, that was the thrust of my OP. The French are not Catholics anyway, any more than they are Muslim or Jewish, they are secular.

France like most European countries are moving away from religion. But over 42% of France are Catholics according to survey.

In 2016, "Ipsos Global Trends", a multi-nation survey held by Ipsos and based on approximately 1,000 interviews, found that Christianity is the religion of 45% of the working-age, internet connected population of France, 42% stated they were Catholic and 2% stated that they were Protestants.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 12:15:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 12:06:00 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 11:50:34 PM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 3:16:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:12:11 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
Probably. I think it is also a throwback to the French revolution combined with the overwhelmingly diverse cultures and religions from a large immigrant multicultural population.

But the French are Catholics and wear send worship the crucifix. They shouldn't be allowed to carry or wear it because that too would be paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents in public.

Derrrrr, yeah, like um, that was the thrust of my OP. The French are not Catholics anyway, any more than they are Muslim or Jewish, they are secular.

France like most European countries are moving away from religion. But over 42% of France are Catholics according to survey.

In 2016, "Ipsos Global Trends", a multi-nation survey held by Ipsos and based on approximately 1,000 interviews, found that Christianity is the religion of 45% of the working-age, internet connected population of France, 42% stated they were Catholic and 2% stated that they were Protestants.

And a recent national census in Australia revealed that of all those who declared themselves to be Catholic, less than 15% regularly attend Church. One could reasonably assume that similar statistics apply to France or any other Western democracy where most religious followers give their faith no more than lip service.
Harikrish
Posts: 38,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 2:05:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 12:15:28 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/24/2018 12:06:00 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 11:50:34 PM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 3:16:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:12:11 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
Probably. I think it is also a throwback to the French revolution combined with the overwhelmingly diverse cultures and religions from a large immigrant multicultural population.

But the French are Catholics and wear send worship the crucifix. They shouldn't be allowed to carry or wear it because that too would be paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents in public.

Derrrrr, yeah, like um, that was the thrust of my OP. The French are not Catholics anyway, any more than they are Muslim or Jewish, they are secular.

France like most European countries are moving away from religion. But over 42% of France are Catholics according to survey.

In 2016, "Ipsos Global Trends", a multi-nation survey held by Ipsos and based on approximately 1,000 interviews, found that Christianity is the religion of 45% of the working-age, internet connected population of France, 42% stated they were Catholic and 2% stated that they were Protestants.

And a recent national census in Australia revealed that of all those who declared themselves to be Catholic, less than 15% regularly attend Church. One could reasonably assume that similar statistics apply to France or any other Western democracy where most religious followers give their faith no more than lip service.

We are not talk about church goers. We are talking about Catholics who wear the crucifix as a religious symbol which should also be banned according to the new legislation.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 3:40:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 2:05:04 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/24/2018 12:15:28 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/24/2018 12:06:00 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 11:50:34 PM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 3:16:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:12:11 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
Probably. I think it is also a throwback to the French revolution combined with the overwhelmingly diverse cultures and religions from a large immigrant multicultural population.

But the French are Catholics and wear send worship the crucifix. They shouldn't be allowed to carry or wear it because that too would be paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents in public.

Derrrrr, yeah, like um, that was the thrust of my OP. The French are not Catholics anyway, any more than they are Muslim or Jewish, they are secular.

France like most European countries are moving away from religion. But over 42% of France are Catholics according to survey.

In 2016, "Ipsos Global Trends", a multi-nation survey held by Ipsos and based on approximately 1,000 interviews, found that Christianity is the religion of 45% of the working-age, internet connected population of France, 42% stated they were Catholic and 2% stated that they were Protestants.

And a recent national census in Australia revealed that of all those who declared themselves to be Catholic, less than 15% regularly attend Church. One could reasonably assume that similar statistics apply to France or any other Western democracy where most religious followers give their faith no more than lip service.

We are not talk about church goers. We are talking about Catholics who wear the crucifix as a religious symbol which should also be banned according to the new legislation.
The number of Church goers is indicative of how religious people really are and my statistic backs up my opinion that most Catholics and Christians, for that matter, are not really religious at all, only by identification.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 5:42:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 7:38:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:29:56 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:56:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

I don't agree with it. I think people should have the freedom to express their beliefs, and so long as religious emblems are not made to look like part of an official uniform I don't see an issue. On the other hand, forcing people to wear religious emblems is the opposite of this.

Well, to play the district attorney, wouldn't it be kind of ideal to know that you're about to encounter one of those (or us) crazy religionists?

How about bells? That's not religious as a production, but it would definitely let one know a bible thumper is near by.

I take it you're being facetious?
For the most part yes, as having to wear bells would be very extreme. That's something that early historic Europeans are alleged to have done with lepers.

But you did state that you believe in freedom of expression. So I have to ask, what do you think would shake a non-believer, sensitive to the causes of orgs like FFRF more? A nativity display on a street corner (something I think we discussed), or someone coming up to them to hand them a tract, or hearing someone on a blow horn talking about heaven, hell, salvation, etc.?
Harikrish
Posts: 38,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 2:21:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 3:40:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/24/2018 2:05:04 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/24/2018 12:15:28 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/24/2018 12:06:00 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 11:50:34 PM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 3:16:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:12:11 AM, Willows wrote:
At 2/23/2018 2:18:44 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

Given that all those who vehemently follow a religion are deluded, would it not be more advantageous if the public at large had a forewarning of who they may be dealing with?

For example; those who have a serious medical condition wear a Medic Alert bracelet. Therefore, why shouldn't we be alerted to hardened religious followers with their particular condition of delusion and habitual lying?

If you followed the French philosophers and their existentialism philosophies it is a logical direction for the French people.
Probably. I think it is also a throwback to the French revolution combined with the overwhelmingly diverse cultures and religions from a large immigrant multicultural population.

But the French are Catholics and wear send worship the crucifix. They shouldn't be allowed to carry or wear it because that too would be paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents in public.

Derrrrr, yeah, like um, that was the thrust of my OP. The French are not Catholics anyway, any more than they are Muslim or Jewish, they are secular.

France like most European countries are moving away from religion. But over 42% of France are Catholics according to survey.

In 2016, "Ipsos Global Trends", a multi-nation survey held by Ipsos and based on approximately 1,000 interviews, found that Christianity is the religion of 45% of the working-age, internet connected population of France, 42% stated they were Catholic and 2% stated that they were Protestants.

And a recent national census in Australia revealed that of all those who declared themselves to be Catholic, less than 15% regularly attend Church. One could reasonably assume that similar statistics apply to France or any other Western democracy where most religious followers give their faith no more than lip service.

We are not talking about church goers. We are talking about Catholics who wear the crucifix as a religious symbol which should also be banned according to the new legislation.
The number of Church goers is indicative of how religious people really are and my statistic backs up my opinion that most Catholics and Christians, for that matter, are not really religious at all, only by identification.

The ban is on displaying religious symbols in public schools (scarfs, turbans, crucifixes etc). It is not a religious test to see if you are really religious or not.
Skepticalone
Posts: 8,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 2:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 5:42:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:38:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:29:56 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:56:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

I don't agree with it. I think people should have the freedom to express their beliefs, and so long as religious emblems are not made to look like part of an official uniform I don't see an issue. On the other hand, forcing people to wear religious emblems is the opposite of this.

Well, to play the district attorney, wouldn't it be kind of ideal to know that you're about to encounter one of those (or us) crazy religionists?

How about bells? That's not religious as a production, but it would definitely let one know a bible thumper is near by.

I take it you're being facetious?
For the most part yes, as having to wear bells would be very extreme. That's something that early historic Europeans are alleged to have done with lepers.

But you did state that you believe in freedom of expression. So I have to ask, what do you think would shake a non-believer, sensitive to the causes of orgs like FFRF more? A nativity display on a street corner (something I think we discussed), or someone coming up to them to hand them a tract, or hearing someone on a blow horn talking about heaven, hell, salvation, etc.?

Consider one more possibility: none of the above. The problem is that you either don't understand freedom of expression (and the government doesn't have it) or you don't understand the goal of the FFRF (they are concerned with religion in government).
Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 4,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 6:14:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 2:32:43 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/24/2018 5:42:59 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/23/2018 7:38:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:29:56 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:56:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/21/2018 10:10:36 AM, Willows wrote:
In recent times, France brought in legislation prohibiting the wearing of any paraphernalia that identifies one's religious bents as I understand it, in educational and government institutions.

But was this a smart move by the French Government?

I don't agree with it. I think people should have the freedom to express their beliefs, and so long as religious emblems are not made to look like part of an official uniform I don't see an issue. On the other hand, forcing people to wear religious emblems is the opposite of this.

Well, to play the district attorney, wouldn't it be kind of ideal to know that you're about to encounter one of those (or us) crazy religionists?

How about bells? That's not religious as a production, but it would definitely let one know a bible thumper is near by.

I take it you're being facetious?
For the most part yes, as having to wear bells would be very extreme. That's something that early historic Europeans are alleged to have done with lepers.

But you did state that you believe in freedom of expression. So I have to ask, what do you think would shake a non-believer, sensitive to the causes of orgs like FFRF more? A nativity display on a street corner (something I think we discussed), or someone coming up to them to hand them a tract, or hearing someone on a blow horn talking about heaven, hell, salvation, etc.?

Consider one more possibility: none of the above. The problem is that you either don't understand freedom of expression (and the government doesn't have it) or you don't understand the goal of the FFRF (they are concerned with religion in government).
That's alright. Shows us the importance of wording. I mention the FFRF, and that took my question out to left field. My fault.

I'm not talking about your average FFRF member. I didn't want to just say atheist as I think the majority of atheists don't take issue with things like nativity scenes.. Maybe I should have stuck with what I normally use which is atheist activist. But even that can get confused with someone directly involved with orgs like the FFRF (they're not the only atheist activist group).

That being said, we know there are more militant atheists (maybe that's the term I should have used). We know that there are a good number of atheists that express anger and resentment towards religion, especially Christianity. They're not involved in law, so all they can do is ask for help from these different orgs. And these orgs have to put it into proper lawful perspective. They have to advise them on whether or not the complaint involves something illegal, or what are the chances of winning a case. We know that many of these atheists are not solely focused on current legality. So thus the question I posed (and maybe by some twist of fate you might answer).

How many atheists have you seen get upset over Confucius quotes (words of wisdom) used in public schools btw?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.