Ok, sorry for the cheap header - this is actually a reply to DianneMaire's post by nearly the same name.
To our American friends on tBlog who probably don't get much of a "real" sense of what goes on within France (I get CNN-be-the-last-to-know-I nternational on satellite, but even that is pityfully ignorant of European culture), here are some thoughts:
The French society, like all other European ones, has for millenia suffered the supremacy of "Religion" over its political/sociological system, - i.e. the government system itself was built on the principle of inequality between human beings, and all funded (financially and intellectually) by the Church.
Trying to keep things short, here are a few tidbits:
- People were born in inherantly different classes: aristocrat/common. Even their blood was supposed to be a different color.
- If you're in the lucky class, you have right of life and death over the other (which are your slaves)
- At the top of the ladder, the king, a direct eartly representation of god, has in turn right of life and death over not only the lowly assholes, but even the aristocracy (including sisters, brothers, parents, etc - check how many fratricides have occured in France's history).
All this blessed and promoted by the Vatican.
Somehow ppl got sick of it. Mostly because it comes to a point when, if you're dying of hunger, you don't care any longer about your salvation in the "next world".
During the very turmoil-ridden century that followed the 1789 revolution and the fall of the Bastille, the French People have little by little come to realize that the Church does NOT belong to a sane, healthy and fair politico-social system. Religion is a private thing, a belief everyone should be entitled to have, as part of freedom of intellectual thought, and that's all there is to it.
Now here is were it is all relevant to today's issue about Muslim veils and Christian crosses:
Early in the 20th century, the Fr People, by a huge majority (meaning the actual people, not the goddam government) decided that it was time to enshrine the separation of church and state in the constitution. Religious practise is free, but it is not part of the State, not part of the government, not part of the welfare system, not part of the schooling, the hospitals, the social security, etc. One is free to "privately" add spirituality to a non-religious system, but no more. And if you happen NOT to have any religious belief, you're not left out of the system. Can't be fairer, right?
But perhaps the most interesting thing for our American friends here, is this:
Right back to the early 1900s, the then hugely staunched catholic population (99% or more) had no problem dealing with separation of church and state. In fact, if one gets inbued in the local village culture of those times (read Marcel Pagnol, and you'll see what I'm talking about), you notice that even in the most isolated backward villages, people (I mean people at the individual level, the residents, the old folks, etc) didn't want any form of religion to taint schools. Whenever some young "instituteur" (= primary school teacher) turned up, appointed by Paris, the first thing the locals would check out is the lack of any religious influence in his teaching: they want her/him to teach their kids spelling / grammar / geography / maths, etc. They do NOT want him to teach them scriptures. The very same ppl who every Sunday will all meet at church. "THEY" will take care of their kids religious education.
Believe me, this is so ingrained in the culture for over a hundred years that as it was indeed pointed out not long ago by an article published here, it has worked completely flawlessly till recently. I spent my primary school in private catholic schools, and my secondary (high-school, you call it there, I believe) in public, no-religion, schools, and never once felt any amount of tension or dissention about the arrangement - religion was a "NON" problem.
It is a bit like, the society at long last learned it was best to keep the 2 issues separate. And after nearly one century of freedom of religion problems, France is now (since late 1990s) coming across them again.
Unlike what some ppl who don't know the background of this country ignorantly say, the problem with the issue of the veils for Muslim females, has nothing to do with intolerance of religions: it has to do with the principle of not letting religion interfere with "normal" social life - religion is a personal add-on, not built-in to the system. By the way, private religious schools are not only allowed, but even funded by the secular state, so what is the big problem? Just like I was myself, if parents want to send their kids to a non-state school, they can send them to a parallel religious school where they'll get all the scripture classes they want - and it still costs them nothing.
But most importantly, this is what the overwhelming majority of Fr ppl want, including many Muslims living here. So other ignorant do-gooders from other places that march in the streets saying the Fr government is acting out of line, just think about this:
You're wrong, the Fr government is for once speaking on behalf of its citizens. It's not just 490 out of 520 députés (= "parliament members") who voted, it's 45 million French citizen out of 50 million. So whatcha gonna do about it, eh? Tell the international community that all Fr citizens be gas-chambered for voicing their wishes on how their country should be run? Impose your outside system on the Fr population? If so, ask Bush about it, he's an expert - he knows how to explain ignorant people how real democracy works when he sees them.
Lastly, as a challenging contrast, I personally find it most offensive, when watching a speech by an American president or other US politician, that the conclusion should involve a religious connotation ("god save America"). Why the fuck? And what god are we talking about? Allah? Is Bush saying "Allah save America"? Or Buddha? What sort of ambiguous shit is this? And is America endorsed by god (whoever that god maybe), but France and Iran and Cuba and China are not - so we're now back to 11th Century crusades against the infidels, butchering them to make them see the light of who the "only good and true" god is and what countries he bestows his favors onto.
Is this an embodiement of the "American Way" into the US constitution: if you're an atheist you cannot be a true American citizen? Wow, coming from a country built on ex-europeans fleeing intolerance and injustice, 2004's US way sure seems like a real forward step of humankind achievements!
Something the size of an asteroid hit my mind after reading DragonBait22's post about a national masturbation day.
What if Bush came up with an anti-viagra pill?
One, that everytime you get an email, makes men's penises decrease by 10cm in length and 1 in diameter?
Just think of it: a few weeks of the treatment, and the entire polemic over STDs/illegal copulation/satanic fornication would be solved. No need for a controversial anti-Christ measure like generalized masturbation: all men's dicks would be reduced to the size and impotency of someone's like say, big fat fuck, and Bush would have earned his place next to St Peters for posteriority (uh.... posterity, I mean).
I wasn't particularly interested in starting my own blog. Most of you ppl come with very interesting stuff, and I'd have been quite content to simply participating by commenting.
However.... (and this is for you, james):
It appears this is the only way I can post anything which isn't simply a reply/comment to someone else's. My quandrum is this: james, how come, in each of your blogs, it is impossible to reply/comment? I noticed you very recently published your many email addresses, but I'd thought it more logical to allow other users to reply publicly to your rants.
Please explain - I'm sure I must be missing something obvious.
Blogs that suck:NoGuru's blog
(fascist, racist and proud of it. Hatred and dumb rhetoric are his fav. pastimes). "Just my opinion, but I'll stick to it, just like a fly to shit" Reducto's blog
(written with the vision and logic of a deep-fried zucchini. Highly recommended for a good laugh)
BushLover's blog
(take a Noguru fruitcake, add more fascist sauce, sprinkle with threatening & bullying spices, and you've got a perfect BushLover dessert). Rsheinfield's blog
(pro-israel fanatic - anything the Israel gov says or does is gospel, including mass murder)
RedTigress's blog
(same as above + delightfully racist and fascist. An embarrassment to the Tiger species)
SithSense's blog
(same as above, + he just LOVES dead bodies and massacres)
Jim Doney's blog
(kinda like Reducto's blog. Just change "zucchini" to "potato")
ajhankin's blog
(same as above)
Defensor's blog
(another fascist bore)
LynnKramer's blog
(curious case of religious zealotry having reached advanced paranoiac delusional condition. Also a delightful source of racist blogs (her fav targets are the French, closely followed by Germans - but any European target will do just fine)
jrogg's blog
(not quite as dumb as Reducto, but ok for a bit of fun every now & then. There's hope for him)
Stepdad's blog
(yet another [sigh!] fascist nutcase)
Deshanews's blog
(same as above)
Camel dropping's blog
(A shameful insult to the otherwise very cute and cudly species of camels and dromedaries.
But, as CamelFace himself proudly announces, his thinking mode is achieved by farting through his own brain)
