American as world police?

[Rivenrock]

..

[Rivenrock]

That was an interesting article... but it sort of points towards the muslim population as the source for the attacks...

Either way, the fact is that racism against the jews has been a part of European culture for hundreds and hundreds of years, yes? I guess I could believe that it is on the rise again. What I don't understand is:Why? That was a question asked by someone in the article as well.
Apart from attacks on jews by muslims, which has its own history, why would the european community begin to rekindle these feelings?
Ugh.

I agree the article was interesting, and saddening. Does Chirac really think that religious pluralism can be handled in a tolerant way by asking people to hide who they are by avoiding religious symbols? Why shouldn't someone wear a yarmulke or a head scarf if it has significance to them? What a disappointing policy suggestion from a man who is openly opposing anti-Semitism at other times. Does he really see it as a positive, workable idea?

In regards to the question of why, the article did suggest that frustrated Arabs seeing reports of Israeli attacks on the news might be lashing out at the Jews in their own country. Though that might be the reason it happened, and part of the reason anti-Semitism is seen to be on the rise, what a tragic attitude. When on earth are people going to stop attacking individuals for the actions of others, or of governments? It makes no sense. I've never understood anti-Semitism. I realise that there are political and economic factors, but overall I've never understood the enduring nature of anti-Semitism.

[Rivenrock]

..

[Skyweir]

That I wholeheartedly agree with . Chirac claims in upholding this ban that he is maintaining the Separation of Church and State, being state schools that this ban is imposed on. But he fails to acknowledge the Freedom of Religion right and the right to religous expression.

This ban, it is worth acknowledging, affects all religous groups: christians, muslims, hindis and jews. Infact it is just discriminates across the broad spectrum of religion!!

Infact I was intrigued to read an article posted in the Miami Herald that noted that this law which took affect in September 2004 targetted "muslim girls: Its also clear that many muslims feel they are the target of this new legislation.www.macon.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/10411077.htm

As Christmas approaches, France is awakening to the realization that a new law banning conspicuous religious symbols at schools -- a measure used mainly to keep Muslim girls from wearing traditional Islamic head scarves to class -- can cut both ways.

''It's an unhealthy political affair. Absolutely regrettable,'' said Andre Delattre, mayor of the northern town of Coudekerque-Branche, which has shipped the traditional chocolates to local schools for 11 years. ``What's the point? It's the children who are being penalized for this difference of opinion. They've been deprived of a festive moment.''

The law, which took effect in September, bans overt symbols such as Islamic head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses at public schools.

More than a dozen teenage Muslim girls have been expelled from high schools for refusing to remove their scarves, along with three Sikh boys kicked out of a Paris-area school for wearing turbans.

Initially, I did a google search hoping to find that this was all just an urban myth, only to find that indeed .. Chirac does support legislating this form of religous censure and has been since he first proposed this in late 2003.

I know that in many western democracies today, religion has taken a back seat in the state school systems .. but Chirac has taken it one step further. Its an odd thing to enforce as how can it have any positive benefit .. when out of the shools the public will continue to wear those religous symbols.

Be interesting to see how thats working out for him

PARIS, France (CNN) -- French President Jacques Chirac has called for a law banning religious symbols and clothing in state schools and hospitals.

Chirac's remarks Wednesday came in response to a commission report favoring the banning of Muslim head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses in public schools.

He said he would sponsor legislation to make the ban law by next autumn.

In an address to the nation, Chirac said: "I feel that wearing any kind of symbol that ostensibly shows faith, I feel that that is something that should not be allowed in schools and colleges.

"If we are talking about a star of David, the hand of Fatima or a small cross, those are acceptable, but when it's very obvious, in other words, when if they are worn people can immediately see what religious faith they belong to, that should not be accepted."

[Brinn]

I realise that there are political and economic factors, but overall I've never understood the enduring nature of anti-Semitism.

It is enduring because it is an entrenched tenet of Muslim theology and has been institutionalized through the madrasses. The Hadiths contain many anti-Semitic passages, for example, Mohammed said. "...you cannot respect the Jew, the Jew is God's enemy until the end of time." Also, "The Jews will fight you, but you will be set to rule over them until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. But the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him."

[Rivenrock]

Brinn

See even that surprises me, because Jews are 'people of the book' - one of the religions that shares the Old Testament. A colleague of mine just married a Moroccon Muslim, and although his parents would have preferred him to marry a Muslim, it was acceptable for him to marry a Christian because they believe in 'the one God'. He also said it would have been acceptable for him to marry a Jew, for the same reason.

Now of course I do realise that not all Muslim countries are as flexible as Morocco, but I do find it a little weird that they would have this point of view if Mohommed told them to kill Jews.

You know, I usually find the view of people who say 'all organised religion is evil' ignorant and narrow, but there are days when I can really sympathise with that view. Seriously, what is so difficult about respecting other people's right to believe as you (we) do not? In discussions on religious intolerance I constantly find myself wanting to throw up my hands at each of the players and yell 'just get the crud over it already!' It's so frustrating, and dismaying, and even boring, the way people seem so determined to use religion, which should lead them to be better people, to justify clinging to hatreds that never were appropriate in the first place.

[sindatur]

Well, like with Christianity, if you subscribe to Letiviticus, you'll find some of your ideas are considered extreme and inhumane, but, it happens to be what your brand of religious faith teaches. Same goes with the more extreme versions of the Muslim faith.

As far as the UN being Anti-Semitic, well, not the institution, but the nations who are part of it can be. Egypt and Jordan have accepted Jewish Israel's right to exist, and the Jewish people from that state's right to exist. Very few other Muslim countries in that region feel that. Most Muslim majority nation would like to see Jewish Israel be destroyed. That's an awful lot of countries in the UN. Eurpoeans on the internet that I have had debates/conservations with, have been a very high majority in favor of the Palestinians and against the Jewish in the struggle. So, if my experience with folks on the internet are representative of the "Guy in the street" in Europe, then, that's pretty much a large portion of the world predjudiced against the Jewish Israelites, when you consider Europe and Muslim Majority nations.

[dennisrwood]

again someone mentions the UN and the countries that make it up as seperate. the UN has an anti-semetic bias because so many of it's member nations do. i have never seen proof that the members lose their individual identity and start voting for what is right over what is expedient for their beliefs.

[Plissken]

This entire argument is made more difficult by the nebulous definitions of the terms involved. Even getting past the semantical problems of defining supporting Palestinians as "anti-Semitic", and accepting it to mean "anti-Jewish", there is a wide range of definition available for the term. Is one considered "anti-Semitic" if he supports the right of return? Does the definition apply, as most Israeli leaders would have it, if the support of all of Israel's policies and actions are lacking? Is it simply being opposed to the existence of Jews, ala Hitler?

As far as this debate is concerned, it may be that it is the definition of the term that is "insidious" and "damaging" -- not the existence of the attitude.

[dennisrwood]

Plissken : too right, replace the troubling phrase wityh anti-Jewish. it is more accurate anyway.

[Plissken]

Plissken : too right, replace the troubling phrase wityh anti-Jewish. it is more accurate anyway.

Thanks, but that's only the beginning of the problem - As an example: I consider myself to be non-racist, and therefore, as far as Jews are concerned, far less anti-Jewish than many of the leaders who supported the creation of Israel, "So the Jews will have somewhere else to go."

On the other hand, my revulsion for anyone who argues against allowing the repatriation of refugees, on the (racist) idea that the identity of the country will be comprimised, runs deep - which makes me "anti-Jewish" in some circles, and "anti-Semitic" in others.