Death to France!

[TheStinger]

You are only protected if you were born a christain and go about it quietly, converted people can face severe problems.

[lord of the mark]

Once again - France has every legal right to do this - at least as far as international law is concerned - it is possible to violate US views of religious freedom without being in vioolation of international agreements on human rights. I am not familiar with EU law on the subject, and really doubt that any of the Americans posting here are - it would be interesting to hear from non-French Europeans on their views of EU law on this matter.

There is a question of whether it is wise. And a question raised on another thread of what it will do to French relations with the muslim world, and the relative importance of this versus alleged US abuses at Guantanamo and elsewhere. In that prior thread certain polls showing dislike for the US in the muslim world were quoted.

What is interesting here is that it shows a dynamic going on in the muslim world wrt France. It may be true that the Iranian STATE maintains good relations with France, and poor ones with the US, but is that any more comfort to France than the pro-US position of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Just as we must be concerned about anti-US feelings among the populace, so must France be concerned about anti-French feelings.

WRT to it being a matter of dispute among muslims - even many muslims who DONT consider it a religious obligation are offended, notably the Erbadi (sp?) the Iranian woman who won the Nobel prize.

WRT to christian symbols in Iran, saudi etc. - Yes christianity faces much worse persecution in those places than Islam does in France. As the French never tire saying about Israel, "we expect better of you"

[Ned]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


You are wrong on this. Christian in Iran are a protected religion in Islam. In the middle age muslum ruler wrote to the pope about choices of who should be Bishop out of three local people an they ask the pope opion on this. Many time the pope wrote back pick whoever you want.

Charles, when I read something like this, I am amazed and ecouraged. In many Muslim countries, Christians are not welcome at all.

[Tamerlin]

Good post lord of the mark but though the debate is centered around the muslims the French Constitution is not specifically targetting the muslims but all the religions.

The problem is that speaking about Islam is nowadays always very sensitive but If there is one point on which I will never give an inch it is to allow something to the muslims that would not be allowed to the believers of another faith just because we have to further our relations with muslim countries or because they don't like the laws of the Republic.

The muslims have all the rights afforded to any citizen in France but they also have the same duties including the duty to obey to the law of the French Republic.

One has to understand a few legal principles before judging. These principles are one of the pillars of our legal system:
- The French Constitution displays the basic rules all the laws and administrative rules must be consistent with (the laic status of the Republic is included in this Constitution)
- No one can ignore the law (it would be too easy to say: "I didn't knew")

The current debate is, in a way, useless as there is no point in discussing the way the current laws and rules should be applied. Even if you don't agree with the law, you can't ignore it and you must obey this law because the Constitution and the French laws has been voted by the Deputees and Senators elected by the French People from whom comes all the power.

You can say you don't agree with this and you are perfectly entitled to, this right is fortunately also included in our Constitution, but the only choice Mr Chirac had was to forbid all religious symbols or to forbid only the more conspicuous ones. You should remember that the President of the French Republic is the Keeper of our Institutions (this role is also clearly defined by our Constitution) and that he is thus "forced" by this same Constitution to defend the principle of a laic state which is also written in this Constitution.

Though Mr chirac speech might have sounded harsh, it was on the contrary a moderate one.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Good post lord of the mark but though the debate is centered around the muslims the French Constitution is not specifically targetting the muslims but all the religions.

The problem is that speaking about Islam is nowadays always very sensitive but If there is one point on which I will never give an inch it is to allow something to the muslims that would not be allowed to the believers of another faith just because we have to further our relations with muslim countries or because they don't like the laws of the Republic.

The law as written is neutral. However it is a fact that a large number of muslim girls who attend public schools in France consider the Hijab a religious obligation. Crosses and Jewish male headcoverings are also banned. However wearing a cross is not a legal obligation to Christians as far as i know. Modern Orthodox Jewish boys can keep their heads covered with baseball cap, which is allowed under the law, IIUC. This would be an inadequate solution only for ultraorthodox Jews, of whom I guess hardly any attend public schools in France. Clearly the law in fact impacts only muslims, and the discussion surrounding it indicates a concern only with muslims.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The law as written is neutral. However it is a fact that a large number of muslim girls who attend public schools in France consider the Hijab a religious obligation.

Certainly not a large number and this is another problem. You should know that there are only a few individuals involved as the number of girls opposing the law are less than ten every year. You would divide the number of cases by two (at least) by substracting the girls that are simply asking to wear the famous hijab because of external pressures.

Crosses and Jewish male headcoverings are also banned. However wearing a cross is not a legal obligation to Christians as far as i know.

Neither is the hijab according to many muslim intellectuals.

Clearly the law in fact impacts only muslims, and the discussion surrounding it indicates a concern only with muslims.

I would rather say mainly instead of only.

Though it is true, the Constitution is clear and existed well before Islam became a major religion in France and Europe. But the laic status of our Republic is nonetheless an integral part of our Constitution and can not allow an exception to the enforcement of the law on behalf of the religion of an individual.

And I am strongly opposed to such an exception as I am among those that are holding the laic status as a sacred principle... and Islam has nothing to do with it.

[Ned]

Does France ban all "native" dress of other cultures?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Does France ban all "native" dress of other cultures?

No. France bans conspicuous religious symbols in public schools.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tamerlin



Neither is the hijab according to many muslim intellectuals.

LOTM: and their are some (liberal) Jewish rabbis who think its ok to eat pork. And their are some Christian ministers who think the Pope is the antichrist. So what? The question is not whether there is debate within a religious community, which to an American way of thinking at least is NO BUSINESS of the STATE, but whether the freedom of INDIVIDUALS is impinged upon.

I would rather say mainly instead of only.

Though it is true, the Constitution is clear and existed well before Islam became a major religion in France and Europe. But the laic status of our Republic is nonetheless an integral part of our Constitution and can not allow an exception to the enforcement of the law on behalf of the religion of an individual.

But until muslims came to school in hijabs it was not considered necessary to legislate on religious clothing. Even the large crosses banned under the law were not a threat to the Constitution, until banning them was needed to make the law not look anti-islamic.


And just as muslims disagree, so do non-muslim French. Apparently there is a significant minority of Frenchmen who do not think this law is needed to maintain the lay status of French schools, or to protect the 1905 constitution.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Ned
Does France ban all "native" dress of other cultures?

This overtly provocative and groundless sentence does not deserve any answer...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
This overtly provocative and groundless sentence does not deserve any answer...

Don't worry, it's normal. Ned trolls about 75% of the time, and is serious during the rest.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

But until muslims came to school in hijabs it was not considered necessary to legislate on religious clothing.

Because there was no need to before as everyone was obeying the law. This is the heart of the problem.

Even the large crosses banned under the law were not a threat to the Constitution, until banning them was needed to make the law not look anti-islamic.

I am sorry but what you are saying is wrong and groundless... the laic status of our republic is dating back from 1789 and was primarily aiming at the catholic church.

And just as muslims disagree, so do non-muslim French. Apparently there is a significant minority of Frenchmen who do not think this law is needed to maintain the lay status of French schools, or to protect the 1905 constitution.

As far as I am concerned I agree that we don't need a law... but for a different reason. The Constitution and the rules already existing are clear enough.

By the way, our current Constitution is dating back from 1958 (the Fifth Republic) and includes the preamble of the 1946 Constitution (the Fourth Republic) thus giving a constitutional value to the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tamerlin



I am sorry but what you are saying is wrong and groundless... the laic status of our republic is dating back from 1789 and was primarily aiming at the catholic church.


1. But nonetheless wearing large crosses was allowed - is this not true

2. BTW you are incorrect about a continuous lay status since 1789 - in fact of course your republic is not continuous since 1789 - the first empire had a concordat with the papacy, France under the Bourbon restoration was definitely Catholic, even the Third Republic was IIUC continued Catholic control of the schools for some years - the laic status quo wasnt really established till 1905, IIUC.


As far as I am concerned I agree that we don't need a law... but for a different reason. The Constitution and the rules already existing are clear enough.

[Ned]

But if a scarf is not religiously required, it is simply "native" dress of a different culture.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
But if a scarf is not religiously required, it is simply "native" dress of a different culture.

Nope, it remains a religious symbol. Exactly like a cross, that remains a religious symbol despite it being not a mandatory wear for Christians.