Religion has its rights.

[Whaleboy]

So the state can choose to impliment it or not, but it is stil there? What, prey tell, is an unimplimented right? Freedom of expression is something granted by the government, whatever that government is.

Forgive the misunderstanding. A free will is an existential state. A "right" is a property of that state relative to other humans. A state recognised "right" is that right being enshrined in statute. You have the right, you just don't have the legal right (the two are distinct).

Drogue, as we have previously discussed, we all act in our own best interests. If I live in a repressive state where there is no freedom of speech, and I say something illegal, I have done so because it is in my best interests. The law is not existential... essense but (something like) no existence like all sociological constructs. You do so because of certain motivations, weighing them up against the risks... it, like many things is a question of potential difference.

The legal consequences have not changed that result, you still have the right, just there are now different consequences, since the law is merely consequential.

[Drogue]

Yes, of course. When I say right, I was of course refering to a legal right. I believe the other is just a choice, not a right in itself. If the law says something is banned, you may still do it, but you don't have the right to, as it is illegal.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Heresson
The scarf does not hurt anybody (unless it's the family that forces to wearing it), and if a girl thinks God will her to wear it, it is dumb and cruel to force her to take it off, especially if she wears it everywhere else and is not used to being seen half-naked, as she may understand it.
Additionally, a stress caused by such situation my be harmful to her school performance

If only it was as simple as that.
But it's not.
Some point of the debate - even in the muslim community (*) - is to know if the headscarf does mean submission or not. Submission of women to men, which means inequality.
If - I insist: IF - the headscarf means inequality between men and women, then it hurts hard the second principle of the french trinity Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.
As I know the Frenches and their ideas about what the Public School should teach, I am almost sure that those who support that scarf ban are convinced that Public School MUST teach equality.
And for them, certainly, muslim girls are FORBIDDEN by republican law to show or proselyte that they are inferior to men.

(*) may I just remind you the "Ni putes, ni soumises" association (Neither whore, nor submissive) that fight against the common idea amongst some muslims that scarf means submission, no scarf means whore.

[Heresson]

Scarfs do not mean submission

[Drogue]

It is seen by many that it does. That is enough to challenge equality, since if people believe it does, they will act so. Who says it doesn't?

[Heresson]

Hm... Many people believed Jews needed blood of little children to make maca in medieval times...
Does this mean it was becoming reality because of it?

[Whaleboy]

It is seen by many that it does. That is enough to challenge equality, since if people believe it does, they will act so. Who says it doesn't?

The people who it directly concerns? i.e., the Muslim girls?

[Drogue]

No, I never said it made it the reality. I said that if people believe it is submissive, that is enough to make it unequal, since people will act as if it is unequal.

[Whaleboy]

Drogue what does that have to do with anything?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Heresson
Scarfs do not mean submission

That's really unclear. Even for muslims.
What seems clear is that it means submission to God. This is no problem, even for secular laws.
What is unclear is: does it mean submission to men?
And that's IMO an interesting discussion point in the scarf debate.

[Heresson]

Why would that mean submission to men?

[Dry]

I'm not sure, I'm no muslim.
What I know is that it needs an assiociation to fight against this idea.

What I can imagine, on basis of what I experienced in christianity and applying it to Islam that:
submission to God implies submission to its laws.
So, if God - or the ayatollah (sp?) - says women are submissive to men, then, for a women "I submit to God's law" implies "I submit to men".

[Whaleboy]

...to the necessary degree required to even consider taking action against it?

I don't see how it can come under anything other than freedom of expression, and thus I wholeheartedly support efforts to make France reverse this ruling.

[Heresson]

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Drogue what does that have to do with anything?

Heresson's quote: "Does this mean it was becoming reality because of it?"