Do France Allow Freedom of Speech/Religion?

[Jayhawker Soule]

If i read your question correctly.Are you asking which secular country.

Nope.

 

[NoX]

Hypocritical thread is hypocritical.

Do not troll the topic please

 

[Laika]

So do you agree that France have freedom of religion with limited restrictions?

Yes. People in France have a legally protected right to freedom of religion with some limited restrictions.

 

[leibowde84]

So do you agree that France have freedom of religion with limited restrictions?


Are you asking those that are born in France to leave there country of birth?


Yes you right if you not living there so why give a damn.

If Muslims do not like the laws of the country they are living in, they should most certainly leave. When you continue to live in a nation, you are accepting part in their social contract. One of the stipulations is following the laws of that nation. If you don't like the laws you can either work with politicians to change them, or you can leave.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Nope.

Sorry i erred.
It must be Canada.

 

[faroukfarouk]

If Muslims do not like the laws of the country they are living in, they should most certainly leave. When you continue to live in a nation, you are accepting part in their social contract. One of the stipulations is following the laws of that nation. If you don't like the laws you can either work with politicians to change them, or you can leave.

I disagree with you so far as leaving.
Yes the constitution says freedom of religion then you got to stand up for your constitutional right.Never run away from it.
When countries were colonized the citizens never ran away.They fought for their rights and lost innocent lives but they did succeeded in the end.
Yes work with the politicians and if you get nowhere then use other means.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Must be difficult not being allowed to murder people because you think they insulted your religion.

Perhaps one should consider to relocate to a place where people feel the same. My personal advice would be the Islamic world, Though I am not sure if France still pays welfare in such a case.
I hear Pakistanis are pretty big in murdering people because they insulted Islam. Recently it was because someone threw away the card of a Doctor named Mohammed.
What a hilarious country.




If you have nothing in common with the place you live in relocating to a more like minded place might be a good idea.

Don't let it bug you because we all will eventually come to reclaim our land in Palestine.This is a prophecy.
Now be careful of drinking the water.

 

[Flankerl]

Don't let it bug you because we all will eventually come to reclaim our land in Palestine.This is a prophecy.
Now be careful of drinking the water.

Oh wow.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Yes. People in France have a legally protected right to freedom of religion with some limited restrictions.

Good...
The French government issued guidelines to schools which states that the ban covers both: "signs and behavior...whose wearing immediately makes known a person’s religious faith."
In 2004 Education Minister Francois Fillon is reported as saying that the law would be applied "with absolute firmness....I will pay personal attention. There will be no exception." However, small Christian crosses and crucifixes will be allowed, even though wearing them "immediately makes known a person's religious faith."
Is this not religious discrimination and intolerance?

 

[Laika]

Good...
The French government issued guidelines to schools which states that the ban covers both: "signs and behavior...whose wearing immediately makes known a person’s religious faith."
In 2004 Education Minister Francois Fillon is reported as saying that the law would be applied "with absolute firmness....I will pay personal attention. There will be no exception." However, small Christian crosses and crucifixes will be allowed, even though wearing them "immediately makes known a person's religious faith."
Is this not religious discrimination and intolerance?

No. it's just a really bad law which is next to impossible to enforce, especially if you are seeking to enforce it fairly. Whether it constitutes intolerance will depend on where you draw the line between a public space and the private right to express your own beliefs. It would be very hard to argue that it is not intolerant, even if it is an attempt to be consistent with secular beliefs.

 

[faroukfarouk]

No. it's just a really bad law which is next to impossible to enforce, especially if you are seeking to enforce it fairly. Whether it constitutes intolerance will depend on where you draw the line between a public space and the private right to express your own beliefs. It would be very hard to argue that it is not intolerant, even if it is an attempt to be consistent with secular beliefs.

Now if its intolerant to religion the that makes it a bigotry State.
I think it more than just a bad law.Its actually a radical law.Imagine you not allowed to wear a cap or scarf because wearing it will make known a persons religious faith.Imagine If i am sitting next to a christian or Jew surely through my interaction i will know their religious beliefs.
Further when the law was passed the girls were allowed to wear bandanas.
I think the law makers in their intent of discriminating against Islam actually made their constitution meaningless.

 

[Laika]

Now if its intolerant to religion the that makes it a bigotry State.
I think it more than just a bad law.Its actually a radical law.Imagine you not allowed to wear a cap or scarf because wearing it will make known a persons religious faith.Imagine If i am sitting next to a christian or Jew surely through my interaction i will know their religious beliefs.
Further when the law was passed the girls were allowed to wear bandanas.
I think the law makers in their intent of discriminating against Islam actually made their constitution meaningless.

I think there is a distinction to be made about the nature of law. Some laws are "negative" in assuming all actions that are not written in the law are considered legal. Other laws are "positive" in that they mandate certain behaviors and anything which is outside of them is illegal. I would say that banning a person from wearing a cap or scarf would be a positive law in enforcing secularism and can therefore be viewed as "bigoted".

At totalitarian system would use 'positive' law to mandate certain behaviors, but the limited nature of the intrusion into freedom of religion is no where near as systematic for the state itself to be considered bigoted. It is a relatively limited intrusion into religious freedom.

 

[leibowde84]

I disagree with you so far as leaving.
Yes the constitution says freedom of religion then you got to stand up for your constitutional right.Never run away from it.
When countries were colonized the citizens never ran away.They fought for their rights and lost innocent lives but they did succeeded in the end.
Yes work with the politicians and if you get nowhere then use other means.

If it doesn't work with the politicians, it shouldn't happen. What you are saying is that you should always be able to get what you want. There is no consitutional right to be free from offensive comments. There are no blasphemy laws. And that is intentional. The vast majority wants freedom, and is willing to take the bad with the good. Forcing your views on others "through other means" is downright evil.

 

[Akivah]

Is this not religious discrimination and intolerance?

A much better example of religious intolerance comes in a recent story from Afghanistan.

A Kabul woman that was accused of setting a quran on fire was killed by stoning, set on fire, and her corpse was dumped into the river. Abdul Wahed, a storekeeper that lives next to where the murder occurred, said that the woman's psychological state should have been investigated first. The killing should have only come after that.

Hmmm...such tolerance to hold up as a role model.

 

[columbus]

Now if its intolerant to religion the that makes it a bigotry State.
I think it more than just a bad law.Its actually a radical law.Imagine you not allowed to wear a cap or scarf because wearing it will make known a persons religious faith.Imagine If i am sitting next to a christian or Jew surely through my interaction i will know their religious beliefs.
Further when the law was passed the girls were allowed to wear bandanas.
I think the law makers in their intent of discriminating against Islam actually made their constitution meaningless.

Let's talk about Raif Badawi shall we?

Tom

 

[faroukfarouk]

I think there is a distinction to be made about the nature of law. Some laws are "negative" in assuming all actions that are not written in the law are considered legal. Other laws are "positive" in that they mandate certain behaviors and anything which is outside of them is illegal. I would say that banning a person from wearing a cap or scarf would be a positive law in enforcing secularism and can therefore be viewed as "bigoted".
At totalitarian system would use 'positive' law to mandate certain behaviors, but the limited nature of the intrusion into freedom of religion is no where near as systematic for the state itself to be considered bigoted. It is a relatively limited intrusion into religious freedom.

Ok so the law is bigoted but not the State.......... mmmmmmmm
What about violation of human rights?

If it doesn't work with the politicians, it shouldn't happen. What you are saying is that you should always be able to get what you want. There is no consitutional right to be free from offensive comments. There are no blasphemy laws. And that is intentional. The vast majority wants freedom, and is willing to take the bad with the good. Forcing your views on others "through other means" is downright evil.

I am talking about apples and you are calling a tomato a fruit.
Freedom of religion is a constitutional right in France.I am not talking about forcing ones views.I am talking about religious discrimination which is oppressive and evil.

A much better example of religious intolerance comes in a recent story from Afghanistan.
A Kabul woman that was accused of setting a quran on fire was killed by stoning, set on fire, and her corpse was dumped into the river. Abdul Wahed, a storekeeper that lives next to where the murder occurred, said that the woman's psychological state should have been investigated first. The killing should have only come after that.
Hmmm...such tolerance to hold up as a role model.

You are off topic.Please refer to OP.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Let's talk about Raif Badawi shall we?
Tom

You off topic.
Please open your own thread and i will definitely give you a reply.

 

[Laika]

What about violation of human rights?

I suppose as an Atheist I feel that this really isn't that much of an important issue and that my bias is at work here, and I could well be wrong as it does depend on how you define the "human" in "human rights". But generally speaking I would consider human rights violations a physical threat to person and property and state sponsored violence and by comparison I would consider this fairly minor.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok so the law is bigoted but not the State.......... mmmmmmmm
What about violation of human rights?


I am talking about apples and you are calling a tomato a fruit.
Freedom of religion is a constitutional right in France.I am not talking about forcing ones views.I am talking about religious discrimination which is oppressive and evil.


You are off topic.Please refer to OP.

What discrimination? Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. How on earth would satirical cartoons fit into this definition?

 

[faroukfarouk]

What discrimination? Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. How on earth would satirical cartoons fit into this definition?

Oh boy..........
Who made mention of cartoons?
I do think you have a serious problem understanding simple english.