US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[Spiffor]

LOTM:
You now understand the core of the problem. The fact is, that there is a huge grey zone in what religious symbol is deemed "ostensible" and what isn't.

We want to conciliate several incompatible demands: that everybody gets a decent education, that we want schools to be devoid of religious proselytism, yet we don't want to ban all believers from public schools.

The headscarf debate is not new, and it has been an headache each time. I don't think the current law brings anything significant to the previous laws of the past. The only good thing is that it does clearly define some of the most common behaviors that are not to be alowed in school anymore.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Now, if the kid wore a T-shirt where it's clearly written "I don't eat pork cause I am Muslim/Jewish", that T-shirt would be banned.

and if someone wears a t-shirt that says the reason i wear a headscarf is cause im a muslim, that would be banned. And if not, then its ok - shouldnt it be?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DanS


This sounds very authoritarian to American ears.

A political party, a religion, or any kind of association claiming that they apply their own laws, rather than the laws of the country where they live, can only be outlawed right away.

Or would you just wait until they have actually breached the laws and then put them in jail?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
You now understand the core of the problem. The fact is, that there is a huge grey zone in what religious symbol is deemed "ostensible" and what isn't.

But the grey zone is handled hypocritically, and with an assumption that a rule of modesty maintained by some muslims is a sign of proselytization, while one held by christians and atheists is just natural.

Example: France has, IIUC, a large community of "naturists" who think its just fine to live without clothes (weather allowing) Most French (whatever they do at the beach) Catholics and atheists consider this immodest - and many Catholics would cite their religion as evidence why. Does that mean that wearing clothes is proselytism, and should be banned? Yet to many groups of muslims wearing a headscarf is simply a requirement of modesty.

The notion that any assertion of the truth of your religion is proselytism is odd, at least to english ears. But accepting that, it seem the ban on proselytism is self contradictory, at least where religions that regulate everyday life (like Islam and traditional Judaism) are concerned. People make choices in their everyday life CONSTANTLY - and followers of such religions are called to follow religious edicts constantly - the French law may make sense in relation to Roman Catholicism circa 1905, a relgion with less regulation of everyday life than islam, and whose cultural assumptions (about modesty, diet, etc) were shared by French Atheists at the time (and largely are still so shared, naturists excepted)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


A political party, a religion, or any kind of association claiming that they apply their own laws, rather than the laws of the country where they live, can only be outlawed right away.

Or would you just wait until they have actually breached the laws and then put them in jail?

Yes, precisely.

Which means you dont have to have the state organize them, authorize them, or in any other way impinge on their affairs.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
yeah like you did long ago for the Jews, with the result that when some (liberal) friends of mine went to Paris they had trouble finding a Synagogue that they felt comfortable with (IE one where men and women had equal roles) Its a little better in UK,IIUC, but not all that much.

I know nothing about the synagogues net, and still less about what a comfortable synagogue is, but I am under the impression that you are not fair on this one.

Have you been told that the French jews have had difficulties with the state about building synagogues ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


A political party, a religion, or any kind of association claiming that they apply their own laws, rather than the laws of the country where they live, can only be outlawed right away.

Or would you just wait until they have actually breached the laws and then put them in jail?

You guys make John Ashcroft look like the paragon of tolerant liberalism

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I know nothing about the synagogues net, and still less about what a comfortable synagogue is, but I am under the impression that you are not fair on this one.

Have you been told that the French jews have had difficulties with the state about building synagogues ?

No, but that the Consistoire was organized at the behest of the French state, institutionalizing the dominance of Orthodox synagogues in French Jewish life.

[Spiffor]

LOTM:
I know for the modesty issue, and despite being generally against religion meddling in everyday life, I understand that wearing a Scarf for a muslim woman is sometimes like wearing bras/panties for a western woman.

However, unlike the general agreement on wearing clothes, it is widely considered that the Scarf is a sign of submission from women to men. An increasing literature about it, as well as the new feminism coming from the ghetto, sure does help such perception.

The woman's submission to man is completely opposite to the core values of the Republic, and that's why we dislike this symbol so much. But this dislike isn't the very reason of banning scarves and kippas; it has to do with the School being a place where only Republican values and identity are taught, in the best 3rd Republic tradition.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yes, precisely.

Which means you dont have to have the state organize them, authorize them, or in any other way impinge on their affairs.

Never heard of Mac Carthy ?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Which means you dont have to have the state organize them, authorize them, or in any other way impinge on their affairs.

Associations are created freely and don't require the State's approval for their creation. The State can forbid them however, if these associations are unlawful.

I don't think (however I'm not sure, I'm no law expert) it is unlawful to preach the superiority of one's law over the Republic's one. However, it sure is unlawful not to apply the Republic's law, even when it is opposite to the association's rules.

[Tattila the Hun]

Do krishna's have to grow hair?

Solution: School Uniforms. They work for the japanese (in more ways then one, heehee...)...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Never heard of Mac Carthy ?

Ever hear that he was repudiated almost 40 years ago?

Are you admitting that the French approach is McCarthyite?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
I know for the modesty issue, and despite being generally against religion meddling in everyday life, I understand that wearing a Scarf for a muslim woman is sometimes like wearing bras/panties for a western woman.

However, unlike the general agreement on wearing clothes, it is widely considered that the Scarf is a sign of submission from women to men. An increasing literature about it, as well as the new feminism coming from the ghetto, sure does help such perception.

Presumably that view is NOT held by the women who wear the scarves. Isnt it upto them to decide whether wearing such scarves is submission or not, NOT for feminists, even if they are muslim and are widely admired (and I would certainly admire them) that what choice in a liberal society is about - freedom for those customs that we DISAGREE with, as well as for those we do. Its not clear to me that the Republican, laicist traditions you cite are really reconcilable with liberalism.

[lord of the mark]

Now dont get me wrong - France is a soveriegn nation, and has the right to be slightly illiberal in this respect - what is NOT appropriate is for a country that fails in its liberalism in this way to preach to a liberal democracy like the US on matters such as the death penalty, etc.