The French rule was designed to make everyone equal.

In that respect it was a good idea.

Just badly executed.

But then as someone else said, you cannot wear any Christian or Jewish signs either.

if each wear the same hat, are all the same......

childish notions that hold no wisdom, as the eyes of a being cannot be made to see all as equal, unless the heart first see HOW each is equal.....

things of the heart must be TAUGHT, that each that draw air into the lungs, do not make themselves breath, and that each that has blood that course thru the body, one does nothing to make it so, and if a mind see knowledge, it has been "given" the power to do so...........if anything think it hold control over it's own facaulties, it is been lulled to sleep, and been decieved.........humankind has forgotten none give themself life, so the giver of life shall make it known, and a friendly reminder will be sent, to again open the mind to things outside oneself......a quake shall rock the entire surface of the earth all at once, not just in one region, or one country, but thruout all..........this will serve to remind humankind of what has been forgotten, and again humility will be found in the heart to admit the truth, that none hold control over the sun and moon and rain and air, which allow life......

if a field of wheat grow, as all the peoples of the nations of the world, than what gave ALL that made each to grow......

Why cant you write in English?
Im still awaiting my answer.

Mr Bulushi :
I am still waiting for you to send me two or three nice , sexy belly dancers..... .

You never asked for them ...

I just turned three away ...

Next three that come knocking on my door, are yours! I promise

belushi.......

is it proper sentence structure you seek, or is it the compliance of all others to adhere to your standards.....

my answer again......

if a man walk down the road and meet ten other men, and each say "this is how you shall do it"........which one should he listen to?

you are one of the ten, and i am the man walking down the road, and why i see no wisdom in your question, but indeed see the motive behind your question.........

do you wish to speak about personal motives, as this be the reason you ask such things.......let us talk of these things in private, and leave the forums free for free expression.....

interest makes for understanding, so if there be no interest, no understanding.......

I think I understand what you are saying.

Why not allow all people the freedom express individuality equally, rather than enforce sameness in an effort to create equality and take away the freedom to express individuality!

I agree, but I do not concern myself with France's internal politics.
I am grateful that I live in America where we are free to express what ever religion we chose to follow equally without State interference!

indeed fanta......each is equal in INDIVIDUALITY, and the freedom to be such......

if no two faces are alike, then NEITHER are any two minds, NOR do they contain the same wisdom and understanding.....

the deception that makes to believe all others should GUESS what is meant, and wanted, and thought, and that each should know how to treat another in all the ways they wish is flawed........speaking is the only thing that create peace ammoung all to KNOW what is even wanted.......anything else create unrest and even hatred........

seems to be the root of WHAT they try to produce by making all laws, but these laws only encite more of what is already present within each that is not understood.........peace

This is exactly why many immigrants from Europe were so willing to risk their lives to journey across the ocean to a new world.
The hope of a brighter future free of religious persecution.
It was one of the foundations America was built upon and was important enough for the founding fathers to guarantee this right to us when they framed our Constitution.
The guarantee of freedom of religion, the separation of church and state, and the statement that all men are created equal!
Those guarantees are still important as evidenced everyday in this country where they are demanded and around the world where they too often are not!

absolutely!!!

My only objection is for ID/Drivers License/Passport and in situations where positive identification is required. Beyond that I could care less. Although it is my understanding that it is actualy a cultural issue, not a religous one.

Just for the record, there is no such phrase as "Seperation of church and state" in The Constitution, The Bill of Rights or any Ammendment.

January 1, 1802, a date that should be well known in American history, and yet possibly all of its significance may have been lost in the ruins of an ongoing debate that still prevails today. This date represents the creation of the phrase, "separation between church and state." However, the origins of the American relationship between church and state date back even further, to the adoption of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides that, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By these words, the drafters of the Constitution established that this country would not stand for either an official religion or restrictions on the freedom to practice any such religion. Today, the United States has progressed from a time when First Amendment restrictions on religion simply limited the government's power, to a day in which the Establishment Clause has been interpreted to target religious statements in state institutions. .

Origin of the Phraseology: Separation Between Church and State

A. The Establishment Clause

"Congress shall make no law resecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This language, taken from the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, is America's first look at the relationship between religion and state institutions. The effect of the Establishment Clause is two-fold. First, it restricts Congress' ability to establish an official religion. Second, the Establishment Clause restricts the government's ability to prohibit an individual's freedom to exercise any such religious practices. Taken literally, the Establishment Clause is the only provision in the United States Constitution that discusses the relationship religion and state have with one another.

B. A Derivation from a General Interpretation of the First Amendment

At first glance, the phraseology "separation between church and state" appears to be an interpretation of the Establishment Clause in the United States Constitution. Rather, the terminology is simply a derivation from a general interpretation of the First Amendment. It was the result of "an inference made from a letter [President Thomas] Jefferson sent to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. President Jefferson was responding to a letter written by the Danbury Baptist Association expressing concern about individual religious liberty and its place in the new nation at the time Jefferson's presidency was being initiated. President Jefferson agreed with the religious association that "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God." Affirming the Establishment Clause within his letter, Jefferson rested any fears the association may have had by expressing his convictions that Congress would "make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, 'thus building a wall of separation between church and state.'" And thus, the nation's concept of a "separation between church and state" was born.

In his letter, the president was quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thus, from a simple correspondence, the American notion that religion and government should be kept separate in order to maintain its system of checks and balances emerged. It should be noted that modern interpretations of both the Establishment Clause and Jefferson's creation of the dicta, "separation of Church and State," have been a driving force behind both legislative and judicial decisions, an intention the drafters (President Jefferson and the drafters of the Establishment Clause) may not have considered.

For reasons that can be motivated only by racism and hatred , some people do not mention the same laws that affect Jews , Sikhs , Christians ......
and they make it an Islamic issue .
So this Hijab law affects other religions and people are blind to mention that .
The Muslim Hijab is not a cultural issue as some ignorant keep on saying . It is a religious issue as it is mentioned in the Muslim book " Koran ".
Ignorance is not a bliss , it is a DISASTER .

Really sam53?

Exactly where? What verses? What pages? Which version? Just saying that it is, so does not make it so.

I have no dog in the hunt at all when it comes to religion. I am not a religious person. I belong to no church. I do not fault or disparage anyone that does save for when they call for my death because I do not agree with them and their faith. Then, I do not care if you worship rabbit droppings, I have a problem with you.

I am also fed up with people crying Bigotry, Racism and discrimination just to get the other side to shut up when you do not agree with them. That is nothing more than cowardice, intellectual dishonesty, manipulation, coercion and intimidation. It also shows lack of a valid counter argument to someone else's point of view. Name calling and swearing is what people do when they have no valid argument left. And that, is the nature of a true bigot.

I am not religious and I do not believe in religion at all . What I said is 100 % TRUE and I am not going to waste my time on Sunday night doing research for those who do no research at all .

OK, First amendment, Freedom of religion!!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The phrase was originally refrenced by Thomas Jefferson in a letter,

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

If you read my original reply, it explains what hijab actually means.



Sam is absolutely correct in that the Qu'ran says that there has to be a veil or covering.

Koran sura 33: Confederates
59 O prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the women of the believers, to wrap their veils [jalābīb] close round them. It is better that way, they can be recognized but not annoyed. God is forgiving and merciful.

Koran sura 33: Confederates
53 (...) And when you ask them for an article, ask them from behind a curtain [hijāb]; that is purer for your hearts and for theirs. It is not right for you to annoy the prophet of God, nor to wed his wives after him ever; verily, that is with God a serious thing.

In 33:53 it specifically mentions hijab as a curtain, not as a head covering.


Oh, and by the way, unlike the bible, which has loads of different interpretations or versions, the Qu'ran has none.

It is the word of Allah and not the words of men

(according to a learned Muslim friend of mine)

So Allah himself, in his own hand wrote this down on paper/tablet/stone? Else it is indeed the word of man.

I will check the Koran verses before I comment on that part.

No research? Me? I assure I do more than most of the people on here combined. Or did you not notice the previous posting or many of my other postings this year?

However I did not want to read the entire Koran to find one or two small points. As if I have all month to read one entire book. You made the claim, I only asked you to back it up and show me where.

Dont get into a debate with me about the eligibility of the words of god, we are both on the same side.

Im not sure god could write with a wax crayon let alone the bible/qu'ran/torah

That is why I put in the proviso about the source of my info.

The bible has the King James version, and this version, that version, etc.

The Qu'ran has only one version and it is from that that the translations are made into other languages.