Secularism: Good or Bad?

[Kvordair]

No government should have control of what the People as individuals choose to believe. Otherwise, it will cause those in opposition to have an uproar. The People will be strongly against each other and no longer be unified as a nation.
It should always be noted that there are radicals of every position of belief who will do any and everything to ensure that their position is taken into consideration. Therefore, rather than FORCING the people to convert to something that truly only benefits whatever the People's belief is (or, in an individualistic rule, his/her belief...), allow them to choose their belief. it will maintain peace within the nation. You don't want your people separated, right...?

Trial and Practice, my neighbors. Trial and Practice.

- The Democratic Republic of Kvordair

[Shiie]

He's the wrong religion,

Source?

I don't need a source for something that obvious.

[Harpers Ferry]

Source?

I don't need a source for something that obvious.

Good thing this is not obvious, and thus needs a source.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Source?

I don't need a source for something that obvious.

It's not obvious. Your claim is positive, burden of proof is on you.

[Aperonia]

I think secularism is good. The church and state should be separated. No government should adopt a religion into its system and force it on all the people. It is a violation of civil liberties.

[The New Velociraptor Empire]

I say the world needs more secularism, theocracies and government endorsements of religion are nothing but trouble.

[Threlizdun]

No government should have control of what the People as individuals choose to believe. Otherwise, it will cause those in opposition to have an uproar. The People will be strongly against each other and no longer be unified as a nation.
It should always be noted that there are radicals of every position of belief who will do any and everything to ensure that their position is taken into consideration. Therefore, rather than FORCING the people to convert to something that truly only benefits whatever the People's belief is (or, in an individualistic rule, his/her belief...), allow them to choose their belief. it will maintain peace within the nation. You don't want your people separated, right...?

Trial and Practice, my neighbors. Trial and Practice.

- The Democratic Republic of Kvordair

General is OOC

[WestRedMaple]

Source?

I don't need a source for something that obvious.

Meaning that you couldn't come up with anything

[Communist Volkstrad]

I don't need a source for something that obvious.

Meaning that you couldn't come up with anything

Exactly.

[Greater Weselton]

I do not like Islam being the state religion.

What about Hinduism then ?

I wouldn't like that either.

[Communist Volkstrad]

What about Hinduism then ?

I wouldn't like that either.

The point is that you don't like it, so why force others to into the same situation?

[Greater Weselton]

I wouldn't like that either.

The point is that you don't like it, so why force that disdain on others?

I wouldn't force it on others.

[Grangeco]

so that means i could say you have the wrong religion then say i dont need a source for something that obvious and any argument you make will be nullified by your own statement. so Shiie you have the wrong religion acording to my unknow sourcless research.

[Communist Volkstrad]

The point is that you don't like it, so why force that disdain on others?

I wouldn't force it on others.

Then....... what is your problem with secularism because it prevents anyone from forcing religion on anyone else?

[Threlizdun]

The point is that you don't like it, so why force that disdain on others?

I wouldn't force it on others.

So then you support secularism? There isn't a non-forceful way to have religion and the state interconnected.

[Harpers Ferry]

The point is that you don't like it, so why force that disdain on others?

I wouldn't force it on others.

Thus you should be fine with secularism, as it assures nothing is forced upon anyone.

[Galloism]

And yet, it is not de jure prohibited.



What nonreligious reason was used for declining religiously themed items?

This is a strange notion.


Not just less sharp. Dull.

Boots, school books, scissors, bras, and school lunch trays are all more deadly. You have no concept regarding the item in question, do you?

Large crosses are not de jure prohibited either.

Wikipedia disagrees with you:

In December 2003, President Jacques Chirac decided to act on the part of the Stasi report which recommended banning conspicuous religious symbols from schools. This meant that the legislature could adopt the recommendations, according to the emergency procedure, in January or February, ready for application at the start of the next school year in September 2004.

On 10 February 2004 the lower house voted by a large majority (494 for, 36 against, 31 abstentions) in support of the ban, which includes the caveat that the ban will be reviewed after it has operated for one year.

The initiators of the law are said to have particularly targeted two items of clothing: the headscarf and the veil (French: foulard and voile respectively); however the law mentions neither and just addresses "ostentatious" ("conspicuous") symbols. Because of its terse, broad, vague terms, the law will leave a lot of its interpretation to the administrative and judicial authorities.

The headscarf (sometimes referred to as the hijab in both French and English) covers the hair, ears, neck, and sometimes the shoulders, but not the face. Most Muslim girls who cover their heads in school wear such a headscarf. More rarely, girls may also wear a complete dress covering their body (djelbab). The full or Afghan burka, which covers the entire body except for a slit or grille to see through, occurs more commonly as the dress of an adult woman than that of a schoolgirl. A recent controversy occurred when a mother who wore a full burka became a representative of parents in a city school. Rather than encourage public participation of such women, her participation in school deliberations while entirely covered was highly criticised. It was finally tolerated.

In order to enforce the law, effective decisions whether certain items are "ostentatious" or not will have to be taken. In order to achieve that:

the Minister of Education will issue circulaires, or instructions for its services; it seems that large crosses, full hijabs or yarmulkes would be banned, while small symbols such as small Stars of David or crosses in pendants would not be;
headmasters will have to judge whether particular attire is or not acceptable with respect to the law;
if necessary, families will go to administrative courts to challenge the school authorities' decision; a final decision may not be reached until the Conseil d'État at litigation (supreme administrative court), decides some points of jurisprudence.

All "conspicuous" (or ostentatious) religious symbols are banned by law. Conspicuous dancing dinosaurs - not banned by law.

People wearing them are simply far more likely to make a fuss about covering it up. I don't care if you wear one, but it might matter if others can see it.

I was a bit unclear: In all circumstances where I observed other students asked to cover jewelery and tattoos, the ONLY students who declined did so for religious purposes. All were removed from class.
In other circumstances to which I was not a witness, but which I knew, students with jewelery and tatoos without religious theme declined to obscure them. All were removed from class.
There is no anti-religious bias(except anti-muslim in some states) in my country of residence. There is merely a victim complex in a lot of christians.

You mean except where the law specifically targets and bans certain religious iconography and leaves other similar situated iconography alone?

You mean except THAT anti-religious bias, yes?

A dull knife goes through a neck without much difficulty. A pencil will not do the same, and not will scissors.

Well, it's not like someone'sever been stabbed to death with a pencil. Or people have ever committed suicide with a pencil.

Removal of pencils and pens is an undue burden, tasks cannot be completed without such a writing tool.

You could use a tablet and a stylus. Or a blackboard and chalk. Of course, tablets can be used as weapons too.

Bras - what. Really? You'd have an easier time strangling someone with your pants, that is a stupid argument.

Of course, it's hard to remove your pants and take them unnoticed down the hallway to strangle someone.

Boots do not increase the damaging capability of a person's legs, books are required for educational purposes. undue burdens all around.

I didn't say boots increased the damaging capability of a person's legs. However, if you remove them, they make dandy weapons - big, heavy, sometimes steel toed.

Books are not required either - light flimsy tablets could do the trick.

[Greater Weselton]

I wouldn't force it on others.

Then....... what is your problem with secularism because it prevents anyone from forcing religion on anyone else?

It leads to immorality.

I wouldn't force it on others.

So then you support secularism? There isn't a non-forceful way to have religion and the state interconnected.

I am only against progressive secularism.

[Vissegaard]

Secularism is neither good or bad. It's irrelevant.

[Dyakovo]

So these laws which have been made unenforceable by SCotUS declaring them unconstitutional are a threat to secularism in what way exactly?

The fact that they have been allowed to remain in effect, even if technically unenforceable, is a tacit acknowledgement on the part of the government that a belief in the Christian God is needed to hold office.

No, it isn't. It's an acknowledgement that removing unenforced and unenforceable laws is kind of a waste of time and money.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Then....... what is your problem with secularism because it prevents anyone from forcing religion on anyone else?

It leads to immorality.

So then you support secularism? There isn't a non-forceful way to have religion and the state interconnected.

I am only against progressive secularism.

How does it lead to immorality, exactly?

[Fanosolia]

Then....... what is your problem with secularism because it prevents anyone from forcing religion on anyone else?

It leads to immorality.

is there really that much of a difference between doing something from your heart than doing something because a god told you to?

[Threlizdun]

Then....... what is your problem with secularism because it prevents anyone from forcing religion on anyone else?

It leads to immorality.

Nope, it's a moral imperative

So then you support secularism? There isn't a non-forceful way to have religion and the state interconnected.

I am only against progressive secularism.

Secularism simply entails the lack of state religion and freeing policy from religious bias. I can't see what is particularly reprehensible about that.

[Harpers Ferry]

It leads to immorality.

Nope, it's a moral imperative

I am only against progressive secularism.

Secularism simply entails the lack of state religion and freeing policy from religious bias. I can't see what is particularly reprehensible about that.

Because it isn't his religion that rules everyone's lives, thus it is reprehensible.

[Dyakovo]

Because no one but people who have your exact same religion, with your exact same views on religion, would want it. You don't have a right to oppress others and force your views upon them.

And you have a right to force me to secularism?

You don't actually know what "secular" means, do you?