French secularism

Religion and Secularism
21

And atheism is not an ideology. You are confusing atheism with humanism and skeptism

22
A sentence resume the thinking of the time. A deputy at the ” AssemblĂ©e constituante ” sums it up : ” Do not give any right to Jews as a nation, give them everything as individual” It meant that the Jews were entitled to benefit all the rights of every person living in France, but had to renounce theirs collective privileges.
This is a very good example of Western individualism being enshrined in law. However, it doesn’t work in a multicultural society.
23

Many things above 


A) @anton

Have you drawn the line in the sand for acceptable actions by West at home against fundamentalist islam like you have in China??

And who is this so called we that is trying to counter it? Is it the collective west that gave rise to Al-Qaeda through the funding of the Mujahedeen or the spread of Wahhabism by unilaterally supporting the house of Saud that gave us 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and the foreign policies in Afghanistan Iraq and Libya that created the ISIS monster and the rule of despotic torture loving dictators throughout MENA that would have long ago been overthrown but for western money weapons soldiers and mercenaries.

Dr Frankenstein creates a monster he cannot control and then looks the other way in assigning blame

  1. Yes I have drawn a line. To fight fundamentalism means:

  • To distinguish muslims and fundamentalists. We fight the second ones not the first ones.

  • To promote democratic value, to respect them and fight racism. Each racist act is a gift for the islamists. We can fight without torture and discrimination. It is contrary to our values and more, it is counterproductive. And more, we must not seem to be hypocrites.

  • We must imperatively fight the economic, sociological causes of fundamentalism.

  • Not to feel guilty. We are not responsible for terrorism. Terrorism is a political weapon. Every western country is hit by terrorism, which ever are his politics inside or outside. And more, Muslims are the first victims. In Africa, in Asia, Fundamentalism kills each year hundreds of people, rapes hundreds of women. I don’t deny our crimes, are faults. I just say that if they explain the rejection of west by many people, they don’t justify blind terrorism.

Terrorism is a mean, we don’t fight terrorism, we fight fundamentalists.

Incidentally, I agree that Iraqi invasion was an unjustified disaster, but it is another topic.

B) @thatoneguy

A sentence resume the thinking of the time. A deputy at the “AssemblĂ©e constituante” sums it up: “Do not give any right to Jews as a nation, give them everything as individual” It meant that the Jews were entitled to benefit all the rights of every person living in France, but had to renounce their collective privileges.

This is a very good example of Western individualism being enshrined in law. However, it doesn’t work in a multicultural society.

I totally disagree. For me it is the only way.

For me, a multicultural society is a society where many people coexist, each with its own religion, or not, beliefs and ways of living.

But, when people coexist in same society, they need a common frame of laws and references.

In the high middle age, different people coexisted with different laws, the effort of the rulers was to unify the laws.

If you allow each one to live according its own law and custom, will you accept excision? Will you accept that Islamic law apply, with decapitation or maiming? Will you accept repudiation or stoning?

In France, we have refugees who come from countries where there is no justice. They are used to collective vendetta. We had groups fighting with weapons in our street. Must we accept that in the name of multiculturalism?

What if a Muslim and a no Muslim want to wed? What if they have a conflict?

There is a democratic country which has tried to allow each to live according to its own religious law, Lebanon. Today, people ask for a common civil law.

Now, this does not prevent people to wed religiously, once they wed in front of the mayor or he deputy, it does not prevent a Christian to fast during Lent, and so on, or a Jewish man to wear a kippah, and so.

 

 

 

1 Like
24

“Terrorism is a mean, we don’t fight terrorism, we fight fundamentalists.”

You completely ignored the examples of the wests sponsorship especially the US, of terrorism.

To quote chomsky - if you want to stop terrorism stop participating in it!

 

“To distinguish muslims and fundamentalists. We fight the second ones not the first ones.”

 

Go on hypocrite. Like banning all muslim immigration and implementing racial profiling policing?

25

@anton

“Terrorism is a mean, we don’t fight terrorism, we fight fundamentalists.”

You completely ignored the examples of the wests sponsorship especially the US, of terrorism.

To quote chomsky – if you want to stop terrorism stop participating in it!

“To distinguish muslims and fundamentalists. We fight the second ones not the first ones.”

Go on hypocrite. Like banning all muslim immigration and implementing racial profiling policing?

 

First I dont call you names. I may be wrong,

Second, what I wrote show globally that I don’t ignore our responsibility in the rise of fundamentalism.

But what I say is that when fundamentalists choose to use terrorism, it is their choice. And when they choose to use it against muslims, they show that the victims are not guilty of anything in this choice. Terrorism, for its instigator is a rational, political and strategic choice. It is not the effect of anger or I don’t know what.

Third, please before picking up a sentence and calling me names, read the whole and I wrote that : " Each racist act is a gift for the islamists. We can fight without torture and discrimination. ". It seems to me that “banning muslim immigration and implementing racial profiling policing” in this category.

Anyway, I did not ask for or implement theses measures. An I strongly condemn theses acts, them being implemented either by the US government or the French one. Incidentally, the French government would not try to implement them as they would be severely and fastly cancelled by French courts.

A few days ago, French president Macron condemned officially police controls based on racial profiling. More easy said that implemented, given our police.

 

 

 

26

The quote feature can help keep threads readable. Click anywhere in a paragraph, then click the big quote icon when editing. To put more paragraphs in a quote block, select them together. Generally, slowing down, posting while sober, and not responding to trolls, is also helpful.

27
Go on hypocrite.
Pretty tough to "win" the argument for fighting for values in a Western country. Especially when we keep flipping our executive administration every 4 years. One starts an unjust and the other has to deal with the humanitarian problems caused by it. Neither one can get elected if they truly spoke up for peace.
28

One step ahead.of you. Maybe you dont but a majority of the “we” as you put it do.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/polls-widespread-backing-trump-travel-ban

 

So your assertion that we target the second group seems rather flaky in light of the ban and profiling.

Any terrotist acts conducted by islamists is small potatoes to what the west has dished out

What’s you thoughts on MLK when he said The United States is “The Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World Today" and chomskys when he said america is the number one terrorist state?

29

“One starts an unjust and the other has to deal with the humanitarian problems caused by it”

 

You destroy my house and then you offer to fix it?

You know what i would say to you.

Are we now into revisionist history by wiping clean the fact both partys supported the iraq invasion?

30
What’s you thoughts on MLK when he said The United States is “The Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World Today” and chomskys when he said america is the number one terrorist state? --anton
Why would I respond to something MLK said about his time and his country in a thread about French Secularism?

Chomsky counts bodies and compares military budgets. When challenged to discuss policy statements, reasons for a particular action, diplomatic efforts that were attempted, and other circumstances, he gets defensive and repetitive. He has a lot to say, but he can also be hyperbolic.

Are we now into revisionist history by wiping clean the fact both partys (sic) supported the iraq (sic) invasion?
I clearly stated that both parties are involved in military actions and the expansion of military budgets. Even when we agree, you are disagreeable.
31

Very sorry. I am used to Forums, but on this one, i am unable to find the quote, edit and to send MP.

32

Hows the narrative. Poor america trying to do the right but being forced to take the role as the aggressor when diplomacy fails. I wonder what diplomacy you speak of for yugoslavia iraq libya syria afganistan vietnam panama, nigaragua etc

Chomsky talks about a foriegn policy all the time in the context of empire whereas you seem to prefer the world police framework

 

You indicate woo is america with one side dealing with war while the other deals with its knock on effects.

33
You indicate woo is america with one side dealing with war while the other deals with its knock on effects.m --anton
You've gone back to mischaracterizing my posts, and I'm going back to ignoring you
34

@anton

Hows the narrative. Poor america trying to do the right but being forced to take the role as the aggressor when diplomacy fails. I wonder what diplomacy you speak of for Yugoslavia Iraq Libya Syria Afghanistan Vietnam Panama, Nicaragua etc

I have used this narrative. I clearly said that Iraq invasion was foolish, at least and much more condemnable. What I say is that it does not justify Terrorism, from a legal and moral point of view. And I think that it is only a part of the explanation of it.

Debating needs a minimum of good faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

Morgan - war is terrorism.

What the nazis did - foolish?

36

“You’ve gone back to mischaracterizing my posts, and I’m going back to ignoring you”

 

Both sides with near identical foreign policies. Woo is america.

37
Debating needs a minimum of good faith. -- morgan
Amen to that
38

And a good honest interlocutor. Not around these parts.

39

OK, I try a last time 


  1. The politics of West fuel the hate of it, I agree to that. And I add that our hypocrisy promoting our values and not respecting them aggravates that.

  2. The comparison with the Nazis is interesting: Islamists, as Nazis have a totalitarian ideology. They hate our values; Even if we were pure and innocent, they would hate us, they would hate democracy, freedom of thought and speech, sex equality and so. West ideology is not perfect but it is not totalitarian.

  3. The islamists have a political project, to impose their ideology to the whole world. To implement it, some of them choose terrorism, not every one of them. Terrorism is a weapon, not the aim of politics.

  4. Terrorism, in our countries, aims to intimidate and aims to create inappropriate answers against all muslims, to convince them that there is no safety with west.

  5. Terrorism against muslims, in muslim countries shows that, whatever the wrongs of west, west is not guilty of the terrorism of islamists.

 

 

40

The nazis did say the killing of their soldiers in far away villages was terrorism