question bout 'merica

[mrswdk]

Aren't Sikh men required by their religion to wear a turban? Doesn't that therefore mean that the effect of a 'no turban' rule is to ban Sikhs from joining the French police force?

[betiko]

Aren't Sikh men required by their religion to wear a turban? Doesn't that therefore mean that the effect of a 'no turban' rule is to ban Sikhs from joining the French police force?

It s tradition but also convenient. The main reason for them to wear a turban is to be able to wrap their hair in it given that they remain uncut throughout their life. I remember when i was a kid living in india i had a sikh friend and as a kid he was wearing just a small ridiculous thing on the top of his head since he didn t have enough hair for the turban.

I know for example that it is forbidden for a sikh motorcyclist in france to ride with his turban, whereas allowed in the UK. Sikhs and any other religious people have the obligation to take a "naked head" picture for their driver s licence, ID, ect. This is not negociable.

This is like when you go live in dorms during college, you live there but there are rules, suck it up cupcake, if you don t like the rules then go live elsewhere.

When I lived in India we were living by indian government rules. Just seems normal to adapt.

[nietzsche]

The evolution of this conversation has brought many different ideas to my head. Sucks that I'm on the phone right now.

For instance, how some religious traditions interfere with one's incorporation to another group.

Or what is more important, your adherence to your country or your religion.

How ideas look for the exclusion of other ideas (evolution of ideas, or memes).

How are countries founded on ideas (the us) that later prove to have problems.

What ideas are worth (or are good) to follow to the end.

It seems as if no idea is worth follow blindly, except perhaps the loftiest, like comradership, empathy, love for others.

In any case I'm siding with betiko, although I've always had the suspicion that patriotism is dumb.

A good analogy or thought experiment comes to mind, but it's too long to type right now.

[mrswdk]

It seems as if no idea is worth follow blindly, except perhaps the loftiest, like comradership, empathy, love for others

Why is it good to blindly follow those things? Blindly following anything is a recipe for disaster.

[nietzsche]

It seems as if no idea is worth follow blindly, except perhaps the loftiest, like comradership, empathy, love for others

Why is it good to blindly follow those things? Blindly following anything is a recipe for disaster.

Certainly if the goal is the supremacy or the survival of the species, following those as the highest virtues (the femenin virtues as Nietzsche would put it) seems not to ne the best idea. Even worse idea if the goal is the supremacy of a race or a nation, or any certain group.

But I don't hold the evolutionary view in high regard. I consider my existence only, and thoae that exist right now.

But your objection is to the "blindly" part. I have no answer, except that I truly think those should be the highest values that as a society we should strive fort.

[mrswdk]

If you don't know why you're following it then don't follow it.

#goodadvice

[betiko]

The evolution of this conversation has brought many different ideas to my head. Sucks that I'm on the phone right now.

For instance, how some religious traditions interfere with one's incorporation to another group.

Or what is more important, your adherence to your country or your religion.

How ideas look for the exclusion of other ideas (evolution of ideas, or memes).

How are countries founded on ideas (the us) that later prove to have problems.

What ideas are worth (or are good) to follow to the end.

It seems as if no idea is worth follow blindly, except perhaps the loftiest, like comradership, empathy, love for others.

In any case I'm siding with betiko, although I've always had the suspicion that patriotism is dumb.

A good analogy or thought experiment comes to mind, but it's too long to type right now.

to tell the truth, I'm not saying that the UK/canadian model is better than the french/quebec model. both arguments are valid. The thing is, that if a country has been built on some values and you are an outsider; the values of the country you decide to go live in should prevail on your traditional values.
if you go live as an expat in any given country, let's say a french girl used to do topless on the beach now living in america; well I don't see why she would have the right to show em them titties while so many american women feel the frustration of having different tans on their belly and their titties.

[2dimes]

I don't think anyone has ever moved to Canada to "blend into the culture."

People have been coming here for hundreds of years to make it an extension or new snowy area of their former country.

[mrswdk]

@betty Cultures and societies change all the time. Why should the right to change a country be given to a person who was born there but be denied to a person who was not born there, if both of those people are living in, playing a part in and contributing to the society? Plus, what about all those Sikhs who are French citizens?

[betiko]

@betty Cultures and societies change all the time. Why should the right to change a country be given to a person who was born there but be denied to a person who was not born there, if both of those people are living in, playing a part in and contributing to the society? Plus, what about all those Sikhs who are French citizens?

ok, let's take saudi arabia. if you have to move there, you know that your wife will not be allowed to do series of things. would you approve? no, but you would have to deal with it. would you hope for changes in the saudi society and the role of the woman there? I guess you would.
the thing there is that it's a state based on on the muslim sunnit religion and you can get death penalty if you manifest your own religion (or if you do such thing as working during the prayers ect).

We all know these things, and if you go to saudi arabia, just suck it up and live by their rules. you cannot arrive and impose your culture.

[mrswdk]

Not a brilliant example, for the purposes of trying to prove the point you wish to make. In countries such as Saudi Arabia foreigners often live in special compounds, in which they are allowed to behave just as they would back in their own countries. So in your example (Saudi Arabia), Westerners go abroad and keep on behaving how they would back home, even though locals are not allowed to behave in this way. They do this with the permission of their host governments, despite the fact that they often pay little/no tax and ditch their middle eastern home the second they've made enough money from it.

So, what about my questions relating to Sikhs in France? Why should French society refuse to change in order to accommodate the diverse backgrounds of contributing members of French society? What if French citizens who are Sikhs ask that their society adapts to allow space for their religion? What is the benefit of maintaining a rigid social order and refusing to allow change?

[nietzsche]

If you don't know why you're following it then don't follow it.

#goodadvice

I do know, however my arguments will not be highly regarded among you guys. Most of you have a very materialistiic, evolutionary point of view.

Instead of posters of chicks you had posters of Darwin photoshoped naked in your rooms.

#andthisisnotfuckingtwitter

[mrswdk]

@nietzsche it's cool, I'm an open-minded kinda gal

[nietzsche]

Ok, let's try.

No, better not. I'm kind of crazy you know.

I've abandoned the materialistic/deterministic point of view, it was making me a sad person. That's why I hold other values now, and whether they seem right or not to the excrutiny of the cynics and skeptics I don't care. They make me a happier person.

Take into account that I have no kids, nor I plan having any (at this point, women have the capacity of changing a man's life), and though I take care of others, it's not the same, they will be gone by the time I die so I don't care about those "we are destroying the earth/economy" ideas.

So I chose now to hold in high regard empathy, respect, and comradership to others.

[betiko]

Not a brilliant example, for the purposes of trying to prove the point you wish to make. In countries such as Saudi Arabia foreigners often live in special compounds, in which they are allowed to behave just as they would back in their own countries. So in your example (Saudi Arabia), Westerners go abroad and keep on behaving how they would back home, even though locals are not allowed to behave in this way. They do this with the permission of their host governments, despite the fact that they often pay little/no tax and ditch their middle eastern home the second they've made enough money from it.

So, what about my questions relating to Sikhs in France? Why should French society refuse to change in order to accommodate the diverse backgrounds of contributing members of French society? What if French citizens who are Sikhs ask that their society adapts to allow space for their religion? What is the benefit of maintaining a rigid social order and refusing to allow change?

well you can behave "almost like at home" in your compounds, but I can assure you that if you're caught working during the prayer times un a café, or if you are a woman not wearing a veil, if you are seen slightly drunk and you are not in your compound, you are in big trouble. Those compounds are almost like consulates, and people don't f*ck around in the "real" saudi society. So no, westeners are far from behaving like they would at home.

Regarding your question about sikhs; actually pretty interesting, because I just realized that I've never seen any sikhs in france (or barely?) I've never heard of any sikh+french person. All indian/bengladeshi/pakistani/srilanki descendant french or just living here are hindou or muslim. Not like it's a huge community either, the indian subcontinent was not part of our colonies (apart from pondichery).
Asian people here are mostly from vietnam/laos/cambodia and chinese.

anyway, a "gendarme" wears a képi and it will always be this way:



what about sikh firefighters in canada? are they allowed not to wear their helmet and just stand their in the middle of a fire with their ignifuge turban?

[notyou2]

I have never heard of a Sikh firefighter, but the turban in the RCMP was a national debate.

I knew a Sikh engineer (he's retired now) and when he toured a building under construction, he had to wear a hard hat over his turban. It looked rather funny and it didn't fit at all. I expect the safety aspect of the hard hat was compromised by it not fitting his head properly.

[mrswdk]

@betiko So far the only argument you have offered in favor of maintaining a rigid social order is 'in the Middle East they don't tolerate other lifestyles/cultures'. I'm not convinced.

[mrswdk]

Ok, let's try.

No, better not. I'm kind of crazy you know.

I've abandoned the materialistic/deterministic point of view, it was making me a sad person. That's why I hold other values now, and whether they seem right or not to the excrutiny of the cynics and skeptics I don't care. They make me a happier person.

Take into account that I have no kids, nor I plan having any (at this point, women have the capacity of changing a man's life), and though I take care of others, it's not the same, they will be gone by the time I die so I don't care about those "we are destroying the earth/economy" ideas.

So I chose now to hold in high regard empathy, respect, and comradership to others.

If your belief system makes you happy and enables you to keep feeling happen then whatever dude, good for you.

[betiko]

@betiko So far the only argument you have offered in favor of maintaining a rigid social order is 'in the Middle East they don't tolerate other lifestyles/cultures'. I'm not convinced.

My main argument is that you cannot make rules and laws that apply to certain citizens and not for others under the pretext that those "others" come from other cultures/religions.

The law and values of a given country are above any religious matters according to us french. It is not for a state to adapt to the faith and traditions of its citizens; it is for those citizens to adapt their faith and traditions to the laws and values of the country they chose to live in. As the stones used to say, you can t always get what you want.

I don t think it s normal that because you are sikh, in england you can drive a motorcycle without helmet. It s dangerous; and mandatory helmets are meant to protect citizens. So basically that is against equal rights.

[betiko]

I have never heard of a Sikh firefighter, but the turban in the RCMP was a national debate.

I knew a Sikh engineer (he's retired now) and when he toured a building under construction, he had to wear a hard hat over his turban. It looked rather funny and it didn't fit at all. I expect the safety aspect of the hard hat was compromised by it not fitting his head properly.

You should create your "hard turban" company i m sure you d make good money in this niche market! Lol. Then export to india, england...

[mrswdk]

French laws towards homosexuals have changed a lot in the past 40 or so years, to accommodate and legally protect a more diverse range of lifestyles. The reality is that the French government and legal system are constantly evolving in order to reflect society's changing values, so it's completely pointless to throw around assertions that everyone in France should be given no choice but to change themselves in order to conform to pre-existing values and norms. That does not happen.

Why are you so afraid of giving an apparently miniscule number of Sikhs the freedom to practice their religion? What do you think will happen?

[betiko]

French laws towards homosexuals have changed a lot in the past 40 or so years, to accommodate and legally protect a more diverse range of lifestyles. The reality is that the French government and legal system are constantly evolving in order to reflect society's changing values, so it's completely pointless to throw around assertions that everyone in France should be given no choice but to change themselves in order to conform to pre-existing values and norms. That does not happen.

Why are you so afraid of giving an apparently miniscule number of Sikhs the freedom to practice their religion? What do you think will happen?

Sexuality choices has very little to do with cultural/religious practices. As I said regarding sikhs, it s not about the turban, it s about not cutting their hair. The turban is just there to put there hair somewhere on their heads. They just need a practical way to keep their hair somewhere, they are not forced by religion to wear a turban over any kind of hat at any given time.
I wouldn t mind if there was an exception and they could be given the right to have a none standard military haircut with no cut at all as it has to be; but adding a turban to the military/police or whatever corpse is ridiculous. It s just to put forward that they are sikhs before anything else in the eyes of society when they are wearing a uniform that says that right now they represent their country.

[mrswdk]

I don't see why that would mean that they are a Sikh 'before' being a police officer. It's not like their identity as a Sikh would clash with their identity as a police officer, or that their turban would hinder their ability to do their job.

If anything, allowing a Sikh soldier or policeman who has very long hair to collect it under a turban sounds like a far better option than having it uncovered and just tied in a bun or something. Wearing their hair that way would pose a risk to their safety (should their hair become unfastened during a confrontation).

[betiko]

I don't see why that would mean that they are a Sikh 'before' being a police officer. It's not like their identity as a Sikh would clash with their identity as a police officer, or that their turban would hinder their ability to do their job.

If anything, allowing a Sikh soldier or policeman who has very long hair to collect it under a turban sounds like a far better option than having it uncovered and just tied in a bun or something. Wearing their hair that way would pose a risk to their safety (should their hair become unfastened during a confrontation).

what is the definition of a uniform, and what is the purpose of a uniform?
oh, and I thought that being a hot asian woman you knew there were thousands of ways to attach your hair.

[notyou2]

Make sure I understand the French point of view.

CONFORM OR GTFO!!!!!