I read over my column when it saw print this week in CBG and was rather surprised to find about a quarter of it missing. While running a section about Howard Stern and censorship that was basically a reiteration of stuff I said earlier in this blog, I then went off on a further tangent which I thought might get some controversy going, since CBGs been pretty quiet lately.
Well, apparently it’s gonna stay quiet, by choice.
Below is the entire section of my column that was deleted without my being informed:
“And every time you see articles about censorship lately, they all keep referring to Janet Jackson
• 
Bladestar,
The comments you attack – which seems something you like to do – about child prostitution in Thailand and the like was simply to contrast your comment that banning nail clippers is “evil” and show there are a heckuva lot more important things going on that can more justifiably be called evil.
And you honestly think 13 year-olds prostituting themselves is a healthy thing for any society?
I do have to respond to the “I am gøddámņëd sick and tired of people like you who want to ban everything they don’t like!”
Again, very angry, and not even accurate. First, people “like me”? You don’t even know me. Second, I have never been in favor of banning anything. Just some common sense, courtesy and respect for others’ opinions and sensitivities. That’s all I’ve espoused. I am, in fact, very libertarian.
Just as the FCC is using the Janet incident to crack down on some people, you are using this post to bash Christians, religious people in general,whiners, and basically people who disagree with you. The topic at hand was not censorship, but whether Janet Jackson was treated unfairly because she’s black. And I don’t feel restraining ourselves to respect other people’s sensitivities, or at least WARNING them in advance about what’s coming (like NYPD Blue) is a bad thing. It’s simply being fair to all people. I like “Nine Inch Nails” and “Lords of Acid”. But I won’t play their CDs when my grandmother is around. Should they be banned? Never! I love them! At the same time,a label simply warns people that what they are buying may not be acceptable to THEIR standards. Ironically, music warning labels, which were supposed to be the death knell of bands wo pushed the edge, have actually helped them sales-wise,since teens and others will now eagerly seek CDs with the labels on them. It’s made the raunchier acts even more “rebellious” and “cutting edge”. At the same time, a mother doesn’t have to be embarrassed because she bought a CD for her son or daughter that uses the word MFer every 5 seconds.
What’s the problem?
My family were anti-baptist. (You call them Mennonite and Amish now). They believed that one should not be baptized as babies but older when they fully understood the meaning of baptism. This was against the established churches belief (Catholic, even “Lutheran” I believe. And they were being persecuted because of that NOT their intolerance.
Zeek,
Thank you. That is the point I am trying to emphasize. We all lose when we are so angry at those we perceive to be “oppressors” that in lashing out, we become that which we most despise.
Bravo Alex Clarke.
I have been disgusted with the way everyone refers to it as the Janet Jackson incident, Howard Stern et al blaming Janet Jackson, Congress investigating Janet Jackson, blah blah… and no one mentions Justin Timberlake. I saw it. He was there too. He loses one lousy booking, while she becomes the patron devil of government censorship in the name of so-called morality.
Did America freak because she’s black? I don’t think so, with all due respect, PAD. I think if Timberlake had ripped off Christina Aguilera’s blouse, there would have been the same ridiculous outcry.
But I won’t go so far as to say race has nothing to do with it. I think you’re absolutely right in your flip-the-races hypothetical: if it had been Snoop Dogg ripping off Aguilera’s shirt, he would be bearing the brunt of it, and she would be seen as a victim. Which is just as unfair as the unbalanced reactions we’re seeing now.
I just think the “tempest in a C-cup” comment from way up top is pretty dámņ funny. My compliments to the author (can’t remember, don’t have time to search).
I posed this question to a friend last night and he said that this event became such an issue because of who Janet is. Or rather, because of who her (freak of a) brother is. Some of it is attributable to “Whackco Jacko by Proxy” syndrome.
I am unhappy that CBG decided to edit your essay. After all these years, one would have hoped that they would have given you a ‘heads up.’
I am always surprised when I read of others openly supporting thought control, whether it be language some consider unsuitable, or concepts that others feel threatened by. I suspect there are a great many closet facists and stalinist out there ‘bwah-hah-hahhing’ out there, waiting to make their move on an ever growing apathy present in the free world. Meanwhile, the PC movement has done a great deal to help nullify the English language to the point that “plus plus ungood” is not far from replacing “bad!” in a standard child repremand.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Meanwhile, the PC movement has done a great deal to help nullify the English language to the point that “plus plus ungood” is not far from replacing “bad!” in a standard child repremand.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Yes, you’re wrong.
Everyone knows it’s “double plus ungood”, not “plus plus ungood”.
😉
There are so many factors at work in this story, and (although I haven’t read all the posts here) I don’t think they’ve been considered.
Like Justin Timberlake being the one to do the ripping of the blouse. This is the most graphic illustration of rape I can recall in a supposed bouncy, happy pop music video. And yet no one has called him on the carpet for it. They blame the woman.
Janet Jackson being a black woman is an important factor. Doesn’t the fact that a white man is assaulting her tweak some memories, even if they aren’t rising to the top of your awareness? Would it be more clear if the band was playing “Dixie” or “That Ole Rugged Cross” in the background, and Justin were dressed in flowing white robes?
And stepping away from symbology and more into practical affairs, assuming Jackson was a willing participant in this (no matter what she’s saying to avoid lawsuits), isn’t it rather pathetic? Her career hasn’t been exactly on fire, and neither has Timberlake’s. Perhaps someone sold her (or she sold herself) on the idea that this might bring her the dose of popularity that her so-so musical and performing talents hasn’t.
Finally, Mr. David, I think it regrettable but predictable that this column would be censored. CBG has always seemed to me to be a very carefully controlled magazine, avoiding anything that might make it seem like pornography to the more censurious-minded. I’m sure they never ran any covers for “Verotica” comics or anything like that. And although what you wrote could appear in just about any other magazine, I can see how your editors might feel alarmed. After all, comics are for kids, right? (?)
Historically, those who came to this continent for “religious reasons” weren’t escaping persecution back home, so much as they were looking for a place to practice the persecution they wanted to, rather than the variety prescribed by the Establishment.
Not entirely true. The Quakers were persecuted in England, so William Penn brought them to the “new world” where they established the first colony where religious freedom was a 100% guarantee.
I didn’t say I was for banning anything.
I didn’t say you couldn’t have your religion.
You can dance around an eff’n pine tree and chant Druid rituals for all I care.
Just don’t try top ban that you find offensive.
I disagreed with Peter’s idea about Janet’s “blackness” figuring into the equation, altho the Snoop Dogg “alternate reality” comparison someone made earlier does make an interesting point.
As for why Janet gets the blame and everyone forgets Justin?
A) She’s a Jackson, related to the whacko with the child-fetish Michael (Whacko-Jacko by Proxy [thanks Jim])
B) How much controversy has surrounded her through-out her life compared to how much has surrounded Justin?
C) Justin apologized.
Frankly, while Janet being black may not be behind the uproar, historically speaking it makes sense, America has a history of pointing out blacks, even when they’ve not done anything, or focusing on the blacks even when there are whites involved too.
Hëll, in this culture, let’s really stir the feces, it wasn’t because she’s black, it’s because she’s a woman! After all, if it’d been Justin’s chest exposed, no one would’ve batted an eyelid.
Frankly I’m more surpriesed that anyone even wastes time watching the half time show…
CBG has always seemed to me to be a very carefully controlled magazine, avoiding anything that might make it seem like pornography to the more censurious-minded.
It’s funny… back in 1995 the cover art of a CBG issue showed what appeared to be an exposed nipple on a woman, which caused a little controversy. I wish I could find a cover scan but here’s a newsgroup discussion about it from back then…
http://tinyurl.com/22l5x
Corey
No you didn’t say you’re for banning. And I’m not either. I never agreed with shutting down Stern for exactly the reason that I know it’ll be turned around to shut down my voice.
Suffice to say you have your freedom to leave it and you have your fear the religious freaks are going to infringe on that, but I have my fear that rabid tolerance monitors will infringe on mine. So we’re even….although I would never berate YOU for being an atheist as you do us for our beliefs.
Yes, we are a bit uptight as a nation, but before we reflexively bash Bush, “conservatives”, and zealous Christians, let’s not forget that the extreme Left likes to shut people up, too. Many feminists would destroy Playboy if they could, because to this way of thinking, this “objectification” helps perpetuate a glass ceiling, to the point where I literally can’t put a photo of my girlfriend in my own cubicle because it’s considered a form of “sexual harassment” to do so. To me, Playboy spreads are tastefully done. But I know many models and dancers, and let me tell you, women who are confident and proud of their bodies and have high self-esteem are seen as an incredible threat to not only close-minded men but women who have none of the aforementioned qualities.
One thing Bladestar and I agree on: The human body should not be viewed as dirty.
Let me get this straight, Jerome. You’ve got a cheesecake pic of your girlfriend? And the only reason you don’t have it proudly on display at work is because of company policy?
Jeez – and my wife won’t even let me get the cheesecake shots of her developed, much less let them leave the house! Some guys have all the luck, I guess…
Bladestar posted: “C) Justin apologized.”
So did Janet. Both apologized publically before the Grammys. CBS then instituted this demand that they must apologize again on the awards show or be uninvited (which the Academy should never have agreed to!), and Janet refused. Justin accepted, apologized a second time, and that was that.
Also lost in this is that Janet would have agreed to appear and apologize again had it not been that the Academy misled her to believe that Luther Vandross and his family had requested she not be part of the tribute to Luther. To the contrary, Vandross demanded she be allowed to participate, but the word came too late.
Aside from that, Janet’s appearance was not to promote herself, nor was she nominated for any awards. She was scheduled to pay tribute to Vandross, and to have that moment turned around and made all about her by forcing her to apologize again in the middle of it would have been a tremendous insult to Vandross — it was his moment, not hers. In that regard, I’m glad she chose to stay out.
Julio Diaz posted: “So did Janet (apologize).
Both (Jackson and Timberlake) apologized
publically before the Grammys. CBS then
instituted this demand that they must apologize
again on the awards show or be uninvited (which
the Academy should never have agreed to!), and
Janet refused. Justin accepted,apologized a
second time, and that was that.”
Actually Janet Jackson apologized almost
immediately after the event. With a written
statement. Then the following day she apologized
a second time with a videotaped apology
distributed to the news media. At which point
she was criticized for making the second apology
in order to garner more publicity from the event,
Then she was invited to apologize a third time,
on live TV, but she declined to do a third time
what she was already being criticized for having
done a second time.
Darned if you do and danged if you don’t.
One persuasive argument against it being an
accident and for it being a preplanned publicity
stunt was the fact that it got the name Janet
Jackson and the word “nudity” into the headlines
a month before the release of the new Jackson CD
“Damita Jo”, which happens to feature a tasteful
nude photo of Ms. Jackson on the cover.
Coincidence?… yeah, sure, why not.
But, again, I’m being facetious.
“Toby,
The France issue is NOT to protect people, although that may be part of what they’re saying to have what is taking place go down easier politically.It is simply the inevitable result of what happens when a large number of Socialists (close to Communists=religion is the opiate of the people) and even larger number of secularists in general are in control of government.”
Of course, you know that the current french government is lead by a neo-capitalist party(or whatever they’re called)? They are everything but socialists.
And you know, the law in France that forbid all religious symbol is a century-old. It was created because the government and the people of the time were tired to have to listen to catholics(they kept pushing their ideologies)…
“They are totally infringing on these people’s religion. As far as protecting them goes, well, that would be the same as telling a black student he can’t wear a do rag or dreadlocks because it might inflame a bunch of rednecks. It is religious discrimination by France, which should be a warning and concern us all. Because it’s not a long leap from banning religious expression “that inflames” to banning political expression “which inflames”.”
Every religious expression is banned, but every political symbols are banned too. And the law was hardened because of the growing tension between muslims kids and jewishs kids.
Leave it to the david. My biggest dissapointmentwas the grammies punishing her and not him .funny that huh.
And you know, the law in France that forbid all religious symbol is a century-old. It was created because the government and the people of the time were tired to have to listen to catholics(they kept pushing their ideologies)…
Sigh. I’m starting to wonder if anyone here checks their facts before spouting off.
No, what people are talking about here is a new law that bans the display of regilious garb or jewelry in the public schools. It just recently passed the lower chamber of France’s parliament.
“You are being incredibly arrogant about this. I really detest it when people choose to be close-minded, regardless of the political spectrum their views may take.”
Hunh. Putting forward a theory, wondering whether it had occurred to most folks, and throwing the floor open for debate is some curious definition of arrogance and close-mindedness that I wasn’t previously aware of. Thanks for mentioning it.
“When the stock comeback when there is a negative reaction or just an opposing opinion being discussed is: “Well, then what I said must have a kernel of truth” is asinine.”
I agree. Where exactly did I say that? I know I said something like, “If you think the concept hasn’t the slightest kernel of truth, then consider this,” and I said “An idea that’s so repellant that people won’t even consider it often is closer to the truth than they care to think about.” But I didn’t say what you claimed. Then again, my not having said something has never stopped people before, so feel free to attack it if you wish.
PAD
First, PAD, the posts you cite arecrelatively old.
Second, I know you’re busy, but you didn’t just throw the floor open to debate (whioch has been pretty successful, mind you). Here is what you said, “I’m starting to THINK that maybe the color of her skin is the MAJOR point of demarcation.”
Which is still opinion veering into ” I really think this”
But you followed that up, PAD, with this,
“Lawsy, lawsy, a Black woman is overtly displaying her sexuality. Where does she get off?”
That was over-the-top Peter. I realize to some extent the point you were trying to make, but it really was.
“Sigh. I’m starting to wonder if anyone here checks their facts before spouting off.
No, what people are talking about here is a new law that bans the display of regilious garb or jewelry in the public schools. It just recently passed the lower chamber of France’s parliament.
“
And let me tell you that the new law is a rewriting of the old, only hardened. I know, I’m french, And I’m not spouting off. As a kid I was not allowed to wear a cross,etc… What happened is that in the last 10 years, more and more religious group(mostly muslims) wanted to come to school with religious symbols. Now it becames so tenses between religions at school, that for exemple a young jewish kid had to change school because of the threat by young extremist muslims.
I realize you may have been simply stating what you think OTHER people are thinking, but check again and you may see how it may not be read by some people that way. You start with the statement “I’m starting to think” and then go on for three paragraphs. There is no buffer of “other people may have thought”, or “this may have resulted in the people who think that”.
You stated what was clearly (with no indication otherwise) your opinion, I responded. Now Bladestar, yourself, and others are accusing me of attacking you, which is not the case. I felt your reply to my Justin point WAS a bit arrogant ”
PAD,
To wit, you stated, ” In other words, they (black groups who wanted to boycott Justin Timberlake) agree with what I posted initially. So thanks for providing back-up to what I said and blowing a hole in your own argument. That was considerate of you.”
Again, if you made a statement that the Holocaust never happened and then stated that mel gibson’s father and other groups supported your view, does that mean you would be correct? A misinformed (or worse) group is just as bad as a misinformed individual. I hate when people use “well this group agrees with me so my argument has some basis” to justify their opinions.
I have heard “a lot of Black people agree with me that Nicole Simpson was killed by drug dealers” and “Black people will always stick together against you. You can’t trust them.” Does it make a difference how many people i cite who share that viewpoint.
No, because the number of people who believe an invalis statement doesn’t make it any more valid.
Now it becames so tenses between religions at school, that for exemple a young jewish kid had to change school because of the threat by young extremist muslims.
So, maybe you can then explain to me how punishing the Jewish kid by forcing him to violate his religious beliefs helps in this matter?
It doesn’t violate his religious beliefs. Him and all the others kids(be it muslims, catholics, etc…) can pratice their religions anywhere(at home, in temple/church/whatever…) but in school.
Spot on Frog kid, the free PUBLIC schools are there to teach (supposedly), not referee religious wars. The families need to keep their kid’s religion out of school.
If they want him to wear religious garb in school and get religious in school, then pony up the dough to send him to private school…
By the same token though, the “young extremist muslims” need to also keep their religions out of school, and if they are threatening other students, then they need to be removed and sent to whatever the modern equivalent of reform school is. And if they actually assault anyone, they need to go to prison.
Quit coddling them.
Would it be nice if muslims, jews, christians, etc all got along peacefully?
Sure, it be great, but it’d also be great if money just magically appeared on my desk every morning.
Both are equally likely considering human nature…
“By the same token though, the “young extremist muslims” need to also keep their religions out of school, and if they are threatening other students, then they need to be removed and sent to whatever the modern equivalent of reform school is.”
Well said, Bladestar. I should have added that. Rereading my post, I’m afraid It could be read like if I blamed the young jewish kid. I do not. I blame the stupid kids who were threatening him.
Bladestar,
Why do you have to be so intolerant? How does wearing religious garb – which is something that is fundamental and important to a lot of people’s lives – hurt anyone else? For someone supposedly so obsessed with “freedom” you seem awfully anxious to take away that of others. As long as they’re not bothering anyone else, why can’t they abide by their teachings. Our public schools have much worse problems than people who choose to wear what is required by their faith. Oh, and great point about if parents want their kids to practice their faith, they ca “pony up the dough” to send them to a religious school. So only the rich can display/practice their faith in public without repercussion? That’s sort of class bias, isn’t it? Given the state of most public schools, those who can do already.
Bladestar, you are a real zealot about this. Don’t you realize your way of thinking makes you just as fanatical as the hateful “religious” people who hold up “AIDS KILLS FÃGS”? Kind of a strange way to support a “loving” god! And your wanting to keep people from even displaying their faith – not even SAY anything – is a strange way to support “freedom”.
They blame the woman.
it wasn’t because she’s black, it’s because she’s a woman! After all, if it’d been Justin’s chest exposed, no one would’ve batted an eyelid.
Both of these are pretty spot on, although I don’t think it’s a case of “man’s chest vs woman’s chest”.
Maybe with áššëš it would the case, but not chests. Like, say, you don’t see many ášš-shots of women classifying as “comic nudity” or anything”.
People wonder why rape victims don’t come forward.
When the blame is on the female, or, in the case of the Kobe Bryant situation, your whole sex life will be on public display, it’s pressure from society as a whole.
Talking about rape fits in there with the rest of our society’s taboo with sex and nudity, and that’s A Really Bad Thing.
How does wearing religious garb – which is something that is fundamental and important to a lot of people’s lives – hurt anyone else?
Let’s replace “religious garb” with “gang colors”.
Now you guys argue.
Let’s replace “religious garb” with “gang colors”.
Or replace it with “rotten garlic and onions”, because that has as much to do with religious garb as your ludicrous suggestion!
Ken, if you don’t think that gang colors are “fundamental and important” to certain groups, you must have managed to avoid living in high gang-activity areas.
Just a tip – don’t wear a blue bandana in northern Omaha, NE, for any reason. The same applies to anything red or bearing a Raiders logo in Vista, CA.
(Please note: travel advisories are subject to change without notice, or apparent reason.)
Or replace it with “rotten garlic and onions”, because that has as much to do with religious garb as your ludicrous suggestion!
It’s good to see that my comment immediately went over somebody’s head.
As Jonathan said, you can go to some places and find out who belongs to which gang simply by the colors they wear. And these gang affiliations don’t end at the front door of the schoolhouse.
It’s precisely because of things like this (as well as revealing clothing, piercings, etc) that schools have regulations about what you can wear.
And some schools just outright have uniforms, so nobody appears different in such a way that it would draw attention.
My point is once you start infringing on freedoms, where does it stop? Many chapters of the Nation of Islam wear bow ties and suits. Would that fall under “religious garb”? Or, because it more closely is identified with Western culture, do they become an exception to the rule.
I don’t believe in even banning the gang colors. Doesn’t it help the schools and those in them to actually know who the gang members (or those inclined to suport such activity) are? A lot of these laws make soccer moms feel better but accomplish nothing and often do more harm than good.
It doesn’t violate his religious beliefs. Him and all the others kids(be it muslims, catholics, etc…) can pratice their religions anywhere(at home, in temple/church/whatever…) but in school.
With all due respect (ie, none), that is just stupid. If someone’s religious beliefs dictate that they must wear a yamulke or a head scarf whenever they leave the house, you are forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.
I’m a firm believer that anything that doesn’t infringe on my life is none of my business. How does a head scarf or yamulke harm you. Okay, it may make them a target for morons, but the solution to that is to punish the morons, not the people who just want to practice their beliefs in peace. What is next? Hide your religious garb on the public transportation system? On the streets? Hey, if you’re not like the rest of us, why don’t you just stay home or better yet, go back where you came from!
It’s not a question of intolerance Jerome, it’s causing a disruption, Public schools are there to teach, not as an outlet for religious expression. Private religious schools are the place for religious garb.
Why shouldn’t schools have uniforms?
Kids go to school to learn, not for a fashion show (dámņ you Will Smith for planting that reference in your music!).
Why make kids and parents agonize over whether or not their clothes are “fashionable” or “hip” enough for their classmates? If the schools had official unforms, then everyone would be wearing the same outfit, and no one would have to worry about looking hip and trendy, or spending a fortune on the “in” clothes. Not to mention unless they planned it well, Outsiders coming in to the school would stand out and be very obvious as not belonging there.
Children don’t have the same rights adults do. By law children are compelled to get an education, they don’t have the choice to not go to school.
There are no disruptive clothes when everyone wears the same thing in a classroom.
Does your job let you wear anything you want to work? I don’t think so, but at least you have the option to quit. Kids have to go to school. (And homeschoolers need to be very closely monitored as well to make sure they’re actually learning something.)
Your intellectually dishonest “Some chapters of the Nation of Islam wear bow ties and suits.” is ridiculous as ignores that lots of people wear them for totally non-religious based reasons.
Banning gang colors is good, as gangs primarily exist to BREAK THE LAW anyway! They rob, assualt, and vandalize, but I understand if you think that’s benefitial to society in some way… But kids don’t have the same rights adults do, and public schools aren’t the place for some things, especially religion and gangs…
I see things that way:
If I go to a church, I take off my hat with respect.
If I go to a mosque, I remove my shoes with respect.
When you go to school in France, you remove your religious and political garb if you respect it.
Bladestar and Den,
You still fail to state how someone just peacefully wearing religious headgarb violates anyone else’s rights. They’re not conducting services. It’s what they believe they are supposed to do. And Bladestar, in an earlier post you said you were not for banning anything, yet now you support this? And yes, my workplace has a dress code. people are required to come in in suit and a tie, etc. But people are alwoed to wear attire that is for religious reasons. To do otherwise would be religious discrimination and a violation of their civil rights.
Let’s back up a second and remember that we’re talking about schools and other countries; that has an impact on the discussion. For one, it’s long been accepted that minors are not granted the full spectrum of rights. For another, the extent of civil rights in other countries are not the same as in ours; let’s not be so arrogant to assume that the US’s spectrum of rights is the ultimate expression of civil rights. If you want to take that position, you’re going to have support it more thoroughly than just waving the term “rights” around.
You still fail to state how someone just peacefully wearing religious headgarb violates anyone else’s rights.
Hey! Don’t lump my with Bladestar! I’m making the point that it doesn’t harm anyone.
When you go to school in France, you remove your religious and political garb if you respect it.
And I see it this way: If you respect other people, you don’t tell them what they can wear and that they have to keep their faith in the closet. Some faiths do require an outward expression. Now, I am not a member of those faiths, but I don’t see how the state has the right to tell people that they have to conform to some kind of societal norm.
If the idea that an individual’s right to self-expression trumps the state’s desire to have everyone conform to a single identity is seen by some as just a tired “American” way of looking at things, then all I have to say is “God Bless America!”
We may not always be the most tolerant society, but at least most of us here recognize that when a group of morons attack someone for being different, you punish the morons, not the victim.
Thak you Roger, I thought I had explained that in my post but apparently ssome people suffer from reading diasbilities, so let me explain it again:
CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS ADULTS!
Children cannot drive, smoke, drink alcohol, or gamble. Why should they have the right to disrupt a classroom with “funky” clothes (or lack thereof in the case of belly shirts and “muscle” t-shirts…)?
A public school is NOT a place for religion, neither, actually is the workplace. If a jewish person can wear his religious gear, then can a Wiccan come in naked? Can an Islamic/Muslim woman wear what is essentially a mask covering her face in public? Most places have laws forbidding hiding your identity with a mask in public.
Just remember, you have the right to worship whatever god you want, but I also have the right to mock your fashion sense.
The law in France was also hardened because of the growing cases of:
-teens(or pre-teens)girls being forced by families to wear a veil(if they don’t, it seems some guys thinks they are allowed to insult her and in some case rape her)
-mens not allowing male doctor to touch their wife in emergencies rooms
-women refusing to take off their veil for ID card pictures when laws say you have to show your hairs on this pic
-etc…
In voting this law, french government wants the schools to be a place where kids are protected from outside extremists views(religious OR political).
And I might add we frenchs have not the same approach to religion than americans. You’ll never see a “in god we trust” on a euro, because it’s not an absolute for everybody.
Just remember, you have the right to worship whatever god you want, but I also have the right to mock your fashion sense.
I suppose that the right to be a total jerk is protected under freedom of expression.
Bladestar, you have to answer the question as to why you find a yamulke so offensive.
Also, while I realize that the rules are different in other countries, in America, the rights of the First Amendment for freedom of religion and freedom of expression have no age limit and there is no clause that says they end at the school house door or the office cubicle.
Your examples are all non sequitors. Smoking, drinking, gambling, and driving are not rights. They are priviledges and subject to the regulation, for good or ill, by the government. Religion, speech, and expression, at least in this country, are rights that are ensconced in the Constitution and protected for everyone, not just those who are considered “mainstream.”
Maybe if you would just stop hating everyone who was different than yourself, you’d be a lot happier person.
-teens(or pre-teens)girls being forced by families to wear a veil(if they don’t, it seems some guys thinks they are allowed to insult her and in some case rape her)
We have child abuse laws to address that.
-mens not allowing male doctor to touch their wife in emergencies rooms
In America, patients have the right to decide who treats them, not their spouse. Another non-issue.
-women refusing to take off their veil for ID card pictures when laws say you have to show your hairs on this pic
We had this issue in America, too. The courts ruled that Freedom of Religion did not include the freedom to refuse to be photographed for privilege to drive a car. If you do not want to photographed, then you do not get the privilege of driving a car.
Problems solved.
I suppose that the right to be a total jerk is protected under freedom of expression.
Why, yes. We all practice it assiduously on this web page.
Also, while I realize that the rules are different in other countries,
Then stop arguing as if the de fault position are American positions; if you are going to argue for the superiority of American approaches, then you will have to do it vigorously and rigorously,
the rights of the First Amendment for freedom of religion and freedom of expression have no age limit and there is no clause that says they end at the school house door or the office cubicle.
This is, of course, incorrect.
On the school grounds, there are measured exceptions to First Amendment rights (for example, school publications are reviewed by faculty members; for other examples, see Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier). In the private sector, the First Amendment does not apply; while there are some generalized freedom of expression guidelines, the private sector can regulate speech and expression more so than government.
-teens(or pre-teens)girls being forced by families to wear a veil(if they don’t, it seems some guys thinks they are allowed to insult her and in some case rape her)
We have child abuse laws to address that.
>>I’m glad you think it’s so easy a situation to adress.
-mens not allowing male doctor to touch their wife in emergencies rooms
In America, patients have the right to decide who treats them, not their spouse. Another non-issue.
>>I don’t understand what your saying, sorry. How do you solve the problems of the husband who stop MD in helping their wifes…
-women refusing to take off their veil for ID card pictures when laws say you have to show your hairs on this pic
We had this issue in America, too. The courts ruled that Freedom of Religion did not include the freedom to refuse to be photographed for privilege to drive a car. If you do not want to photographed, then you do not get the privilege of driving a car.
Problems solved.
>>I didn’t know you could solve social/cultural problems just like that. You should be president.
Also, while I realize that the rules are different in other countries, in America, the rights of the First Amendment for freedom of religion and freedom of expression have no age limit and there is no clause that says they end at the school house door or the office cubicle.
Really? Why, then, do I risk losing my job if I fail to come to work in pressed pants, a collared shirt, and business-type footgear? I mean, isn’t it within my First Amendment rights to wear torn jeans, dirty sneakers, and a T-shirt that says, “Don’t annoy the unmedicated person”?