Hold ostensible religious signs

[Redbird_Lefty]

Since one's choice in a religion is just that, a choice, then I'm not sure that that by itself is a compelling argument for preserving it as an absolute personal liberty within a public place. Race and gender are clearly not choices, hence cannot be used as an argument for exclusion. If the state can provide a compelling reason to exclude religious symbols from public institutions, then I think that the state can be allowed to do so legally. It is not like they are telling people that they cannot worship their diety, only that the public institution is an equal opportunity "religion-free zone". For schools, I would let the adiministration allow the wearing of the symbols as an incentive for achieving good grades. Get straight A's and you can wear your cross, Star of David, or whatever. First and foremost, school is for learning.

[Stacker]

Quote[/b] (Redbird_Lefty @ Oct. 18 2004,05:36)]For schools, I would let the adiministration allow the wearing of the symbols as an incentive for achieving good grades. Get straight A's and you can wear your cross, Star of David, or whatever. First and foremost, school is for learning.

But then they will stand out because they are good students, oh the bad things this could cause!!!

Great post Lefty

[Makiy0]

Quote[/b] ]Makiyo, religion does unite some people, and separate others. The same thing can be said about nationality as well. It would be foolish to think that nationhood unites all, especially if it comes from above. A state-mandated sense of nationality is no match for national unity that comes from the people's hearts. Remember the Soviet Union? The Apartheid? ... please don't tell me that religion is the only source of major conflicts. Political oppression in the name of national unity has its fair share of wars too; so does overzealous patriotism, Nazi-style.

Dear Seeker, great to have a discussion with you again like the good old times. In my earlier post, when I referred to "people", I did not mean French people or Catholic people, etc... I meant the people of the world, all people. Religion does not unite all people.

In a utopian world, everybody is equal in all aspects. Everybody is a citizen of the world. A person born in America is not more American than a person born in Africa. Everyone is a citizen of the world. In this respect, I feel that Communism is actually the best social model ever invented. However, I refer to the purest form of communism and not the Stalinist, Marxist or Maoist model.

Some may counter that communism is counter-productive, does not promote creativity and does not reward brilliance. However, this is only so because of our innate trait of selfishness. If all can be taught to think that the reward for creativity and brilliance is the progress of the world as a whole, then I don't see why creativity will be stifled. However, this will never happen.

As to displaying of religious signs, I too see no wrong in doing it, but I also see no wrong in erecting a law to forbid it. Everyone who practises a religion would know that true faith is within. You do not need an instrument for which to display your faith and adoration for your God. The love for your God in your heart more than sufficient. Since you do not truly need to wear any displays of religion on your attire, this law should not affect anybody in any way.

[atalderic]

humm always the frontier between rights and duty.
Right to practice is religion and duty to to not cause prejudice to the others by this practice.

Quote[/b] ]In this respect, I feel that Communism is actually the best social model ever invented. However, I refer to the purest form of communism and not the Stalinist, Marxist or Maoist model

Yes i am agree with you Makyio. It's just they made some try and we see the bad results. Good on paper catastrofic in Application. Pure theory impossbile to applicate for humans who think as individuality. It's unfortunatly our nature. It's not far from Machiavel system where each individualty give is own power to a structural system who distribute back the power with equity. In communism example, thoses who accumulated the power have kept it for them. And we obtain a dictature. It's far from an ideal democracy where all people benefit from the distribution back of the power they have given.

Quote[/b] ]atalderic, have the french hostages arrived safely home?

Not yet unfortunatly. But we are confident depite awkward diplomatics tries.

[Frightend_Farang]

Quote[/b] ]Yes i am agree with you Makyio. It's just they made some try and we see the bad results. Good on paper catastrofic in Application. Pure theory impossbile to applicate for humans who think as individuality.

Everything Looks good on paper. Democracy, Socialism, and communism all are great ideas. The problem is the hearts of men are easily swayed by money and power.

[Stacker]

Stackism would work fine. One of the greatest forms of government I know, and it is easy. Everyone on this forums simply donates $5.00 to me, then multiply that by the 5800+ users. Totalling $30,000.00 combine that with my money in US stock market and I have enough to buy some land on the beach at Hua Hin and a small amount of farm land in Mokduhan. Then my retirement account would build the houses and pay for the children's schooling.

In return, I will give you all peace of mind. Peace is a government worth donating to. Stackism reign forever, Stackism reign forever, c'mon people chant with me Stackism reign forever.

Ohh I forgot my paypal address is thefourthreich@kerryforprez.com

[atalderic]

sure Stacker but you know gourou sect business is better! you will have slave girls with the money

[Stacker]

If you donate to my cause you can be an advisor until then you are simply a peasant. Only Paul_au is in a position of honor such as myself

[Frightend_Farang]

Hail Stacker Mine Furor!!! I pledge my alligence to thee. The check is on the way.