US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DanS


There were very, very few catholics in the United States up to that point anyway. Almost none, as a matter of fact (there were only a thousand or so at the turn of the 19th century). So I think that it wouldn't be worthwhile to overemphasize the legal discrimination during that time. Anyway, I would like to see the specifics on the laws that you mention.

My family moved to the States in 1842. It has been passed down orally that there was discrimination against catholics, but the legal system was impartial.

With regard to the Washington Monument, there was a hiatus due to lack of funding. The precipitating characters were the know-nothings, but the stone from the Pope was stolen, and had no bearing on the construction after that (other than the theft stalled momentum on the project).

That was in colonial times! Carroll was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Maryland delegate to the constitutional convention, for God's sake! We had a war over freedoms, remember!

Really, there was discrimination, but not by the state, by and large.

Well as far as I can see, the number of Catholics in the fledgling United States is irrelevant- the legislation still remained anti-Catholic in intent and therefore discriminatory on the basis of religion, regardless of the exact population of Catholics.
Prejudice isn’t determined by the amount of people disenfranchised.

As for Carroll being discriminated against in colonial times- why yes, so he was. And all some states did with their colonial constitutions was to expunge the references to the monarch. So Catholics had to wait a further sixty years for full citizenship. Now as far as you having to see evidence of the anti-Catholic legislation is concerned, could we also see evidence for your assertion of the low number of Catholics too?
I fail to see why I should be the only one to have to come up with facts and figures.

States with anti-Catholic measures in their constitutions, post-independence, included:

South Carolina, whose 1778 constitution restricted office-holding to Protestants, and allowed all churches which endorsed the existence and public worship of one God, rewards and punishments in an afterlife, the truth of Christianity and the Bible and the obligation of all citizens to bear witness to the truth when asked by the government to do so.

Effectively, it established Protestantism, but without offering public support for it.

The 1776 North Carolina constitution restricted office-holding to those who did not deny the ‘truth of the Protestant religion’ nor hold ‘religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state.’

The constitution of Georgia also limited office-holding to Protestants.

In fact, after independence, the only state other than Virginia to abolish any kind of religious discrimination was Rhode Island, which had in colonial times discriminated against Jews and Catholics.

As for the anti-Catholic, anti-foreigner Know Nothings and the Washington Monument:

http://www.greatdreams.com/washmnmt.htm

The consensus seems to be that Know Nothing control of the scheme to erect the Monument contributed to the decline in public donations and effectively stalled further work on the project. Of course, the Civil War didn’t help.
And although no one knows who disposed of the Pope's stone, or what became of it, I'd venture to say that the Know Nothings might have just known something in that particular instance.

You can check Blackwell's Encyclopaedia of the American Revolution or Daniel J Boorstin's 'The Americans' (publi. Pelican Books 1965), so by all means don't take my word for the information about the states' constitutions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is an atheist or polytheist supposed to say that?

Like I said, that's optional. You don't have to say that part of the oath, like you don't have to say it in court.

I said it was seen as intimidation. It is. Some people in France are afraid that all girls will soon have to wear scarves.

So some people believe it is intimidating, the minority group has to suffer? Really... that's just dumb.

Turkey is secularian (ist?) but people there promote the Sharia. France doesn't want such a situation to happen

Why not? Don't people have the right to believe what they want?

It would be better to educate people not to fear difference rather than to ban difference, but then it's no easy task.

So you'd rather have the easy, wrong way than the harder, right way?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How is an atheist or polytheist supposed to say that?

Like I said, that's optional. You don't have to say that part of the oath, like you don't have to say it in court.

This is equivalent to the obligation of disclosing whether we believe in god or not. Freedom of religion is not compatible with this obligation.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's just that the rest of the French Polytubbies dancing around the issue was disconcerting. I mean I normally find Tripledoc stupidly annoying but it got to be a little much.

You cannot expect the French Polytubbies to be as witty as you are.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
So long as France is ethnicly "pure"

France is not ethnically pure by any standard, and hasn't been since the King's domain extended beyond Paris in the Middle Ages. Bretons, Basques, Alsacians, Corsicans, Catalans, Flemish, you name it... all are old ethnical groups living in France. By the same token, France had a strong intra-European immigration, with Italians and Poles massively comng between the 19th century and WW2, and we had a massive flux of Portuguese and Spaniards after WW2.

There has been a strong xenophobia against these migrants, especially targeted at Italians and Poles during the 1895's depression (which partly replies to LOTM). But now, most of them have assimilated in the French culture, and you wouldn't know the difference (the Portuguese have kept more of their community ties). The fact that France looks "ethnicly pure" to your eyes show that the politic of acculturation has been a success.

Now, we have a problem with people from different races. Unlike nationality and origin, race is something you cannot help displaying. Many ignorant people believe that any Arab they encounter is an "immigrant", despite this person was most likely born and raised in France, and speaks French as well as me.
OTOH, any person would consider me as a perfect Frenchman, as my mother's Romanian upbringing doesn't show on my face.

This racism is something no government managed to reduce. Besides, the economic hardships make sure that the "they steal our jobs" speech still works well

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
But just one more point or question. What if Chirac were in charge of Iraq instead of the US. Would he try to impose his brand of secularism on the larglely Muslim Iraqi's. If not, why not?

Very short answer:

Chirac didn't have the initiative in this. The issue was forced upon him, and any French politician knows better than to wake this beast.

Basically, Chirac has taken a decision on an issue that is beyond the traditional right-left cleavages. He goes for the value of "laicité" the French value highly (as you could see from all French posters in this thread), and he certainly didn't force anything.

[LDiCesare]

So some people believe it is intimidating, the minority group has to suffer? Really... that's just dumb.

Yes. But then some of the minority do intimidate.

quote:
Turkey is secularian (ist?) but people there promote the Sharia. France doesn't want such a situation to happen


Why not? Don't people have the right to believe what they want?

No. Again, read your own oath. A citizen is supposed to forgo any previous monarch/authority and not to hold it higher than that of the government. A god is a monarch/authority. Therefore, placing a god's laws over the government is not allowed. People can think believe what they want, and they can follow the sharia as far as I'm concerned, for as long as they don't try to impose it on me.

quote:
It would be better to educate people not to fear difference rather than to ban difference, but then it's no easy task.


So you'd rather have the easy, wrong way than the harder, right way?

I didn't say I was for that solution. I was just explaining that Chirac can't find any other way.

The whole point is what will the consequences of banning/allowing religious symbols?
If you ban them, you attack the religious feelings of some people. If not, you will have, sooner or later, non-veiled girls attacked and hassled. Which one do you prefer?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Yes. But then some of the minority do intimidate.

No. Again, read your own oath. A citizen is supposed to forgo any previous monarch/authority and not to hold it higher than that of the government. A god is a monarch/authority. Therefore, placing a god's laws over the government is not allowed. People can think believe what they want, and they can follow the sharia as far as I'm concerned, for as long as they don't try to impose it on me.

I didn't say I was for that solution. I was just explaining that Chirac can't find any other way.

The whole point is what will the consequences of banning/allowing religious symbols?
If you ban them, you attack the religious feelings of some people. If not, you will have, sooner or later, non-veiled girls attacked and hassled. Which one do you prefer?

I would prefer to arrest ppl who attack non veiled girls. the gov't isnt the people's nanny, its job isnt to make sure the medicine is unreachable. we can read.

[Kirnwaffen]

Why is France so afraid of religion?

[LDiCesare]

France is afraid of religion as you say because in the past religion played a very important role in France. During the revolution, when the Tiers Etat (the people) felt they were cheated by the nobles and the clergy, which systematically voted together against the people. This resulted in a lot of anti clericalism and destruction of religious places and symbols during the revolution. Next, there was a lot of petty fights between the Church and the third republic, because the church tried to ascertain its power. The French government wanted to promote freedom of religion, and to that end separated the government and the church. This resulted in particular in public, lay, schools, and private, most often catholic, schools. The principle of a lay state means you want to allow everyone to have their own religion, but that also means not letting people impose their religious beliefs upon others at school, which is the point Chirac is talking about.

I would prefer to arrest ppl who attack non veiled girls.

And the girls might prefer not to be attacked in the first place, and thus would wear a veil out of fear. This is sometimes what's happening.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

"the real reason why the Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building? It wasn't "separation of church and state" but was actually "workplace harassment," as you can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and politicians without creating a hostile work environment."

You could not be more wrong if you tried.

He is right, but he as the wrong commandment. With Southern Politicians involved, you guess the commandment.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


This is equivalent to the obligation of disclosing whether we believe in god or not. Freedom of religion is not compatible with this obligation.

I have been attending court proceedings for years and have yet to hear the phrase "so help you God" uttered by the clerk in swearing a witness.

[Ned]

Two questions:

How popular is Chirac in France?

Spiffor, you mentioned that the French culture was spread by the King as he move his borders away from Paris. If you know, what language was spoken circa 1400 in the former Roman province that was ceded to the Franks during the time of Goth rule of Italy and Spain (circa 536?). It seems to me that the culture of that area of France is different even today.

[Sava]

I wonder if the US is going to criticize itself for deporting 83,000 legal muslim immigrants (reported by Chicago Tribune a few weeks ago) by order of Ashcroft? Not one of them was accused of a crime. And only 11 out of 83,000 had possible, alleged, unproven, connections to possible terror organizations.

Oh no... the French are banning headscarfs in PUBLIC schools. I wonder if the same dopes whining about this are whining about dress codes in uniformed schools in the US?

This stupid french bashing is so lame.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
How popular is Chirac in France?

Currently, his popularity is quite low. There are 3 people whose popularity count in the executive: Chirac (quite low), Prime minister Raffarin (very low), and police minister Sarkozy (clearly higher than Chirac).
Although Sarkozy belongs to Chirac's party, he is ambitious and popular, which puts him at odds with Chirac for the next president's election in 2007.
Chirac often takes decisions oriented at bettering his popularity, especially since we're having elections soon March and June). However, in this issue, Chirac can be at most a judge, and has to decide between the elaborate arguments of both sides (elaborated over the months of heaten debate - heck, we discussed about it in today's dinner again and I strongly believe it will be the main Topic of christmas' dinner this year). The issue was forced upon him and he wasn't the one who elaborated the arguments. In the end, he was more favorable to the 3rd Republic type of integration, while Sarkozy is more favourable to the American-type of integartion.

Spiffor, you mentioned that the French culture was spread by the King as he move his borders away from Paris. If you know, what language was spoken circa 1400 in the former Roman province that was ceded to the Franks during the time of Goth rule of Italy and Spain (circa 536?). It seems to me that the culture of that area of France is different even today.

Well, the French King wasn't that obvious in spreading French culture. The most important cultural edicts taken by the kings were 1) the Villers-Cotterets decree, stating that the language of the kingdom was French (and not Latin, despite it being in used by the scholars of the time, i.e. the religious) and 2) the revocation of the Nantes' edict, said revocation resulted in forcing the French population to be Catholic.

I used the Middle Ages as a starting point of when the King began to centralize France (the Kingdom existed way before this, but the king in Paris was nearly powerless before expanding the "King's domain").
Most areas far from Paris are still distinguished from the center, and you have specific accents, and specific / stigmatised behaviours (the Marseillais are assumed to be exaggerating everything they say). However, the actual differences between Paris and the rest of France is very small compared to what it was 130 years ago, before the 3rd Republic began homogenizing the French society. It was difficult in the past to find Bretons or Corsicans that spoke French. Now, it is the precise opposite that happens.

As for your question more precisely, I seem to know there was a language division between the "langue d'oil" in the North (where "oil" meant "yes") and the "lange d'oc" in the South (where "oc" meant "yes"). The "langue d'oil" has won IIRC, but I cannot give you any details on this. I think google can help you on this one.