<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On a French Burqa Ban</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/07/on-a-french-burqa-ban/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/07/on-a-french-burqa-ban/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:20:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olivier Bivegete</title>
		<link>http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/07/on-a-french-burqa-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-116</link>
		<dc:creator>Olivier Bivegete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:25:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~ichthus/wordpress/?p=982#comment-116</guid>
		<description>There is more than a century since France has turned its back on faith. French law adopted in 1905 secularism; the law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. Coming from a president who is supposed to be the guarantor of the constitution that speech is absurd. France is a nation which has lost its religious identity, on behalf of what Sarkozy is taking such position?
I think that this is only a political game, where Sarkozy wants to make friends in the extreme right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is more than a century since France has turned its back on faith. French law adopted in 1905 secularism; the law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. Coming from a president who is supposed to be the guarantor of the constitution that speech is absurd. France is a nation which has lost its religious identity, on behalf of what Sarkozy is taking such position?<br />
I think that this is only a political game, where Sarkozy wants to make friends in the extreme right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Samir Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/07/on-a-french-burqa-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator>Samir Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~ichthus/wordpress/?p=982#comment-46</guid>
		<description>Important questions.  I don&#039;t believe that a government (or any collective entity) can be neutral or without--as you put it quite nicely--any committment to a certain interpretation of ultimate reality.  I do suggest, however, that for a government, the best ultimate reality to pledge allegiance to is probably not Christianity but rather liberal democracy.  

A Christian state might work if all the nation&#039;s citizens were Christian, just as a Muslim or a left-handed or a Jedi government might work if its populace were thoroughly Muslim or left-handed or Jedi.  But in a society whose participants are so fundamentally at odds with each other on a worldview level, the basic principles guiding our public dialogue should flow from concerns of peacefully coexisting, protecting groups from other groups and the government, and protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual.  Of course, liberal democracy is not a perfect political philosophy and it certainly brings its own worldview and baggage, but it&#039;s a solid Lowest Common Denominator that can bring different communities to the table with a sense of common purpose (let&#039;s not kill each other; let&#039;s feed and protect our families; and let&#039;s protect my freedom to do what I want without infringing upon the rights of others).  And ultimately, a state committed to protecting the rights even of its most bizarre minorities is the best bet for the peculiar and counter-cultural Christian worldview.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Important questions.  I don&#8217;t believe that a government (or any collective entity) can be neutral or without&#8211;as you put it quite nicely&#8211;any committment to a certain interpretation of ultimate reality.  I do suggest, however, that for a government, the best ultimate reality to pledge allegiance to is probably not Christianity but rather liberal democracy.  </p>
<p>A Christian state might work if all the nation&#8217;s citizens were Christian, just as a Muslim or a left-handed or a Jedi government might work if its populace were thoroughly Muslim or left-handed or Jedi.  But in a society whose participants are so fundamentally at odds with each other on a worldview level, the basic principles guiding our public dialogue should flow from concerns of peacefully coexisting, protecting groups from other groups and the government, and protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual.  Of course, liberal democracy is not a perfect political philosophy and it certainly brings its own worldview and baggage, but it&#8217;s a solid Lowest Common Denominator that can bring different communities to the table with a sense of common purpose (let&#8217;s not kill each other; let&#8217;s feed and protect our families; and let&#8217;s protect my freedom to do what I want without infringing upon the rights of others).  And ultimately, a state committed to protecting the rights even of its most bizarre minorities is the best bet for the peculiar and counter-cultural Christian worldview.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Nowalk</title>
		<link>http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/07/on-a-french-burqa-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Nowalk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~ichthus/wordpress/?p=982#comment-44</guid>
		<description>Samir, I like this; our sentiments are similar on this.  I always have one question (for myself more than anyone) for your perspective, though: can a government, or a nation, really be &quot;neutral&quot; with regards to the most fundamental realities of human life?  Can a collective entity truly be without committment to a certain interpretation of ultimate reality?  Where then do our laws come from?  Where then is the basis of our common dialogue?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Samir, I like this; our sentiments are similar on this.  I always have one question (for myself more than anyone) for your perspective, though: can a government, or a nation, really be &#8220;neutral&#8221; with regards to the most fundamental realities of human life?  Can a collective entity truly be without committment to a certain interpretation of ultimate reality?  Where then do our laws come from?  Where then is the basis of our common dialogue?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

