Slashdot Mirror
Is Atlas Holding Hipparchus' Lost Star Map?
cr0kin0le writes "The Farnese Atlas at the Naples National Archaeological Museum may be holding a celestial globe which accurately depicts the long-lost star catalog of Hipparchus, according to a physics professor at Louisiana State University."
Some of the things you link too. . . .
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Catholics like Rudy Giuliani, who shut down the Brooklyn Museum when it showed a painting of Jesus's mom that offended his personally unique sense of religion.
--
make install -not war
The banning of religious expression from state schools arises from the same enlightenment policy of separation of church and state as is expressed in the US constitution.
That the US has basicly thrown that idea away is to the US's shame not that of France.
Mind you, I don't agree with this particular expression of it in France, which I think is silly, but at least they don't have their kids chanting `one nation under god'.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
The banning of religious expression from state schools arises from the same enlightenment policy of separation of church and state as is expressed in the US constitution
Really? That's odd, because it's almost completely opposite from the US policy.
The US policy is that the state cannot endorse any religion; the school could not have a moment for prayer, or put up a cross, etc.
But the major reason for this is to protect the individuals' right to excercise religion without state interference.
IOW, wearing head scarves is exactly the sort of thing the US policy is designed to protect. There have been numerous instances where a school dress code that banned the scarves was challenged and the code overturned, citing seperation of church and state as the reason that students must be allowed to wear them. Indeed, the Chattanooga, TN district made such an allowance last week after consulting legal counsel.
Of course, the right to religious freedom isn't absolute--e.g. the Muslim woman in Florida who wanted to wear her burka in a driver's license picture lost her case. The courts ruled that the state interest (public safety among other issues) in identifying drivers outweighed the religious interest in the case.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
To play the devils advocate: If you allow students the freedom to wear religious symbols, then what about other religious practices, such as organized prayer - as long as it is done by the students and not the teachers? What about teaching religious beliefs, as long as it is done by students?
If one want a secular school, then as long as there are people that want religion in schools you will need to draw a line and set rules for what is and isn't an acceptable level of religious influence. This is in many ways not any different than other limitations on freedoms endured by school pupils everywhere - including in the US.
The headscarf ban is too restrictive for my taste, though, and it does seem like it is more intended to make muslims "less visible" than it is to prevent any real religious influence in schools.
The French government's argument, of course, is that to have conspicuous religiosity in state schools would by implication be an endorsement. If you have a friend's children around to stay and allow them to take drugs, might you not be said to be endorsing drug use?
Consider the extreme case where 99.99% of the kids are dressing in a conspicupusly, say, catholic manner. What would be the effect on the one Jewish kid?
I think they are wrong, but it's not fundamentally different from what used to be the US principle, rather an interpretation of that principle.
As it happens, the fact that this sudden assertion of state secularism coincides with a rise in anti-muslim politics in France makes me suspect the government was not as pure in motive as they pretended.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
conspicuous religious symbols does not belong in state schools because allowing them is an implicit acceptance of religious expression in a setting that is otherwise explicitly protected from it
Schools in the United States are not protected from religion. The school cannot promote any religion (which means, among other things, that the teachers may not express their particular religious beliefs), but the students most certainly may express their religious beliefs.
As I said, the POINT of the first amendment religion clause is to protect the individual's right to excercise their religion--the only reason to stop the state from endorsing religion is to protect the individual practitioners of other religions. Banning religious displays by individuals would run absolutely counter to that goal.
then what about other religious practices, such as organized prayer - as long as it is done by the students and not the teachers?
It is allowed, so long as it is not sanctioned or endorsed by the school. For instance, a student selected to speak at graduation cannot pray during that speech, since their speech is endorsed by the school. But the school cannot prohibit students from praying during lunchtime or on the playground (singly or in groups). However, even something like allowing use of a classroom has been found to be endorsement--so the school can't allow students to run a bible session in one of their classrooms after school or similar.
rage, rage against the dying of the light