French Ban on Religious Items Passes Test

[Onlooker]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040210/ap_on_re_eu/france_head_scarves

PARIS - France's lower house of parliament on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ban students from wearing Islamic head scarves and other religious apparel in public schools.

The measure, which would outlaw conspicuous religious clothing and symbols in schools, was approved 494-36. It now goes to the Senate, where little opposition was expected, in early March.

Implementation of the law was expected next September.

The bill stipulates that "in schools, junior high schools and high schools, signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students are forbidden." It would not apply to students in private schools or to French schools in other countries.

****

Excellent news. Fundamentalists use cover of religion to preach racism, homophobia, sexism, and hate. The only way to control religion is to keep the separation of church and state strong. Without that, you end up with a country like ours, where the religious right has the power to stifle compassion in form of government services, tolerance in the form of equal rights, and humanity in the form of the pursuit of peace.

[el_gato]

1. I don't agree

you oughtta be able to wear whatever the hell you want
even if its a clown suit

[CheshireCat]

18. right on, el_gato!

What a person wears should be no business of the government.

[SemperEadem]

54. the debate isn't even framed that way in France

You're looking at it with only an American perspective---you need to take a step back to 1572 France to understand why they are hysterical with anything that even smells of the formation of a religious state within a state.

I think until Americans have lived through an actual civil war based upon religion, they won't be able to understand why what's a given in this country isn't in others and exactly WHY it is so important to keep church and state separate.

[thingfish]

67. You really think this legislation has anything to do with the Hugenots?!

Come on, man. That's a stretch of a stretch of a stretch. This legislation is FOUNDATIONALLY odious.

And to suggest that Americans haven't had experience with religious states within a state, I suggest you look to the Mormons (and their Kingdom of Zion), as well as the current administration, which is a de facto Christian fundamentalist theocracy.

[SemperEadem]

130. The Mormons haven't waged civil religious war

There is no evidence of any religious sect mustering troops to wage war in the name of religion in this country, either, so that's non sequitur.

No where have I written that the ban is a good thing--or trying to promote it. All I'm saying is that reducing this with just a totally American perspective causes one to miss the point.

Which is: they don't have an American Bill of Rights.

America wasn't founded with an organized religious machine of the kind the Catholic church was in France until 100 yrs ago, deeply ingrained and intertwined in statecraft. (We had uber fundamental Protestants and no desire for regiment) AS a result of that massacre, and the fear of the civil division that wars of religion will cause, they're using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat, metaphorically speaking.

Constitutionally, they are within their rights to propose this legislation, as they have no "congress shall make no laws...."; is it ill advised? Is it going to abate the anger of Muslims and their treatment in a Christian world which has been set and bent on their anihilation for over 1000 years? I think it will take a lot more than negotiating clothing issues to integrate French Muslims into the French Christian mainstream---like the Palestinian issue and Israel being resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Until then, to allay fear, outward symbols of religion are on deck. Interestinly, some Muslims upon hearing the whole outline of Chirac's proposal are supporting it. So go figure.. il est francais... qui sait?.

From http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/19/content_291894.htm:

"The proposal was designed to bolster France's 1905 law separating church and state, brought in after a bitter struggle against the once-powerful Catholic Church. The move followed months of debate on the role of religion in French society, which highlighted the difficulties of Muslim integration."

[leyton]

71. Separation is one thing, banning expression of religion is another.

Students do not check their rights at the door, as far as I am concerned. Now, yes, there will be some curtailing of rights, because schools are a public place and the safety of many people is important. But wearing a headscarf at school does not constitute an endorsement of religion. Puh-lease.

[SemperEadem]

131. I went to a Catholic school

that banned us from wearing headscarves, even though the nuns wore veils. They said we looked like cleaning women.

[thingfish]

19. I don't know about a clown suit, but forbidding certain apparel JUST for..

...religious reasons is downright chilling, in my opinion. I'm usually a France defender, but this time, they got it all wrong.

[mobuto]

23. Well, look at the status quo

there are two clases of citizens in France - "The French" and Muslims. Muslims consist of over one-tenth the population, yet they have not a single elected member to the Assembly - their equivalent of the House of Representatives. That's like the United States circa 1910 - and it clearly indicates just how racially divided France is.

That division is a much bigger issue than freedom of religion, at least at the moment. And anything that can help bridge the division between ethnic groups is worthwhile, even if it means infringing on other, lesser rights.

[thingfish]

25. How do you figure this helps to "bridge the division," exactly?

If you ask me, it does the polar opposite. It makes Muslims, who are already de facto second class citizens in France, OFFICIAL second class citizens. This will deepen the rift, not heal it.

[mobuto]

31. Its bridges the division

because "French" and Muslims are kept apart because they look different. Appearance counts for a lot, and differences in appearance manage to hide more personal commonalities.

It makes Muslims, who are already de facto second class citizens in France, OFFICIAL second class citizens.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[thingfish]

32. Your reasoning is specious, at best.

Why not take every baby that's born in America and bleach their skin white, then? After all, appearances count for a lot! And differences in appearance manage to hide more personal commonalities!

I find your reasoning not only to be specious, but dangerous, and frankly, offensive.

[mobuto]

35. That may not be such a bad idea.

I find your reasoning not only to be specious, but dangerous, and frankly, offensive.

That's too bad. Because while you're wrapped up in getting offended, my interest is in getting people who the subject of horrible discrimination into society as easily and as painlessly as possible. If removing a headscarf is all that it takes to get Muslims kids to play with "French" kids, then it will be worth it. Because France cannot afford to have this division. It is destroying the country.

So save your pious indignation and come up with other ideas. Find a better way to integrate Muslim immigrants and their children and their children's children into French society or else shut up.

[thingfish]

38. You have got to be kidding me.

You suggest that it's okay for the French government to force French Muslim students to adhere to some ridiculous dress code that is designed ONLY to discriminate against them because it might "get French kids to play with "Muslim" kids (who are already French, thank you very much), and I'M the one who suffers from "pious indignation"?!

You're screaming into a mirror, my friend.

[mobuto]

42. I know they're technically French

that's why I used quotation marks to refer to white, predominately Catholic "French" students. The fact is, regardless of citizenship, the Muslims are not actually French. Because they haven't been integrated into French society in any meaningful sense.

If removing a head scarf is the biggest sacrifice Muslim kids have to make to get an education, a job, to have dignity and the opportunity to succeed, then damnit you know where you can stick your righteous indignation. Because integration is far more important than these superficial ethnic barriers. The headscarf is used to keep Muslims down. And that separation from society is the only issue here.

The Muslims need to become French. That doesn't mean surrendering their culture, but it does mean doing whatever it takes to integrate into society.

[thingfish]

64. Stop accusing me of righteous indignation when it's YOU who clearly are.

x

[gimme a break]

126. Just a little bit of devil's advocacy here...

If integration is such a big requirement, why do we bother to have business phone systems in English and Spanish?

[AffirmativeReaction]

80. For the record...

The bill bans the wearing of any overtly religious symbol, i.e. crucifix, star of david, yamika, or head scarf. It does not discriminate against muslims

[Just Me]

101. I really wish people would chill out about a very normal secular struggle.

I just do not get all the fuss. The ban of religious symbolism in public schools does NOT kill off religion or God. It is "a way" to ensure separation of religion and state, without any discriminatory action towards any particular audience. Geez, why are people getting so freaked out? I understand the conflict presented between a "freedom of personal expression" and "separation of religion and state". But, there has to be some prioritization particularly when the situation involves a state funded institution. I wish people would chill out and think DEEPLY about the core issues before jumping on an unchartered bandwagon. Geez!!!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

2. uh

how is this representative of the separation of church and state? isn't this an example of government meddling in religious expression? what are you teaching the children of your country when you forbid students from participating in their religion? what does it teach about tolerance, about peaceful co-existence?

prohibitions never solve anything, they just seek to stifle.

[Onlooker]

6. It's a war out there

Religious fundamentalists continue to exploit liberal tolerance, and thanks to them, late term abortions are becoming illegals, gays are in danger of losing their rights, social programs that help the truly needy are being cut back. The fundamentalists are radical and dangerous, and the more enlightened elements of society are giving them too much leeway. Thanks to our tolerance, Bush is president, Iraqi children and American soldiers are dying, welfare and medicare have been cut, and so on. Do you tolerate oppression if it's done in the name of God? If you can't tell if someone is acting out of fear and oppression or out of devotion to God, what do you do? That's why I support the French policy. Clamp down of the form of intolerance that comes with fundamentalism, nationalism, and parochialism.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Clamp down on intolerance with intolerance

Sorry, this is discrimination and is foul.

Liberte. Egalite. Bigotre.

[mobuto]

45. What's your solution then?

Surely you have one!

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Let people wear what they wish.

Within the normal laws of decency.

[mobuto]

48. AKA the status quo

Well that works, except you still have the same problem - French Muslims are not part of French society, in or out of the schools.

So again, what's your solution?

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Laws against discrimination

Like we have here. And enforcing them.

[mobuto]

52. Nope

The French already have comprehensive laws against discrimination, and they're enforced whenever possible. If anything, their laws are more equitable than ours.

But sorry, they aren't working.

Discrimination is inherent in the French system.

Muslims aren't getting educated. They aren't getting jobs. They aren't associating socially with others. They live in ghettoes - and more so now than ever.

There have to be proactive steps - including affirmative action, which is also being discussed for the first time - to force Muslims into French society. And that includes removing head scarves.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Whenever possible

Clearly isn't often enough and it sounds like a lame rationalization.

Discrimination was also inherent in the American system. In many ways, we've dealt with that. The French should look at that.

And if Muslims aren't getting educated, then it sounds CLEARLY like the laws aren't being used. And this is just more anti-Muslim bigotry.

The Japanese have an expression: "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down." It seems to apply in France as well.

[PsychoDad]

89. So well put...

"to force Muslims into French society. And that includes removing head scarves."
That does sum it up quite well.

As you say, the French don't want Muslims, they want more ethnicly "french" folks. Their religion and culture, along with any freedom of choice, be damned.

[mobuto]

144. Well, they're not going to get ethnically French folks

because that's the one thing the French Muslims are not going to be able to turn themselves into absent significant advances in genetic science.

No the "French" don't want the Muslims, and to a significant extent the Muslims don't want the "French." But that doesn't really matter, because they live in the same country and they're going to have to learn to live together in as equitable and just a manner as possible. The problem is that the current system makes it very hard for Muslims to succeed in the context of French society, and that has to be rectified. Whether you agree that the head-scarf ban is a way of effecting that or not, you have to agree with the motivation.

{{edited for syntax}}

[PsychoDad]

88. My solution..

Tolerance. The French should allow the Muslims to be Muslim, without dictating acceptable fashion.

[gimme a break]

127. Whoa!

So what's the answer? Becoming socialist, atheistic drones? No one can publicly display or practice their religion? This isn't clamping down on intolerance. It's creating more of it.

I could care less if you where a cross, scarf, Star of David, or whatever. You could be wearing a swastika (sp?), I would personally find that offensive, but you have the right to wear it.

The problem here is Muslims need the time to integrate. You can't just jump into it. It would be forcing them to give up their beliefs. If you want acceptance and equal rights you have to be just like us? Many are coming from oppressive environments. Strict parents are still doing honor killings of their own children because they think their children are becoming too "westernized".

They need the time to get to know each other. As in any race or ethnic issues, the adults aren't going to be the ones to solve it. The youth will be the one's that will work to overcome the prejudices. Look how long it's taking here. There would be no racial problems here if people would stop pointing out whose fault whatever it is is. I can see discrimination and reverse-discrimination every day. I have been accused of racism based solely on my color. Which for personal reasons I find hysterical.

We need to stop pointing out everyone's differences and focus on what we all have in common.

[Flagg]

129. You could be wearing a swastika (sp?), I would personally find that offens

not in France you couldn't

wonder why...

[BonjourUSA]

12. we live in religious peace for 100 years with this principle

And we want to go on.

More than 70% of the French muslim girls wanted the religious symbols to be banned in the public schools, 47% of them wanted a law to do it.

Other point, you never find more tolerant than a French because he/she doesn't give a shit about religion... Even if he/she is muslim (about 9% of them practices his/her religion. 4% for all the French population all religions mixed together)

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Tyranny of the majority

Assuming the stats are true, that means 30% of Muslim girls strongly opposed the law, yet are not able to follow their own personal religious practices.

Every Muslim, every French religious minority, should walk off their jobs in a nationwide strike.

[ugarte]

3. Speaking as someone whose kids go to school

here in the U.S. in a school where numerous Muslim girls wear scarves I don't really see the big deal. Frankly, I oppose dress codes in general.

Granted, in France the numbers are different, but I think, no matter how they spin it, this law is aimed at Muslims as a group and hence not something I support.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. Interesting.

This will merit further watching.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. freedom of religion

is actually the freedom to practice said religion. this seems to be a ban on religion..anyway thats my opinion and i am an atheist

[noonwitch]

8. I think it's wrong, too

Wearing the head scarf is a very important religious act by muslim women. I might not agree with it, but it's not my religion.
I assume that jewelry with crosses, stars of David, pentacles, etc., are also forbidden?
I'm all for the separation of church and state, but kids in school should still be allowed free expression of their religious beliefs. When the state says that one expression is okay and another isn't, they are not separating church and state, they are making a statement about what religons are acceptable and which aren't.

[NWHarkness]

9. Only "large crosses" are banned.

.

[mobuto]

15. Large crosses are forbidden, as are kippas

the distinction is whether a religious symbol is overt or not. And a small cross or magen david isn't going to mark some student off as being inherently different.

I'm all for the separation of church and state, but kids in school should still be allowed free expression of their religious beliefs.

All things being equal, you're absolutely right. But all things are not equal, and the fact is that Muslims in France are reduced to the status of second-class citizens -- largely becauase they look different, the same way blacks traditionally were in this country. There has to be a balancing act, and in this case I agree with the French government. France doesn't have a First Amendment, and this would clearly be illegal in the US. But it does have a serious problem with racism, and that's a much bigger threat than any question of religious freedom.

BTW, the ban applies to all overt religious symbols. It will most affect Muslims simply because they put the greatest emphasis on such symbols, but it will also affect Orthodox Jews and any Christian who decides to parade his or her faith around.

[NWHarkness]

10. I think this is extremely dangerous

It seems possible that many Muslims will pull their children from the public schools and enter them in madrassahs, where they will be indoctrinated into extremism.

This is going to backfire badly, I am afraid.

[ugarte]

11. Exactly

Muslims will become even worse second-class citizens in France than they are already. The net effect will be social dynamite.

[mobuto]

14. I agree with this

Overt signs of religiosity serve only to divide the people. I also support school uniforms for the same reason. France is a highly segregated country, where Muslims and Jews and Catholics go to school and don't talk to one another. Largely because they look different. You can't just pretend that this segregation doesn't exist, as the French government does -- there have to be overt efforts to integrate minorities into French society.

Religious diversity is all well and good, but it cannot be allowed to interfere with the ability of one tenth of the population to rise above the level of second-class citizens.

[muadib31]

69. Mobuto your are badly informed about France

Dear Mobuto,
Your are badly informed about France en general and french muslims in particular. I think you have been watching CNN to much. Actually I saw several short documentaries on CNN (international edition) which depicted french society as « highly segregated » (your own words). For your information, there is no mention of « race » on ID card or any official document in France. For your information, in the past ten years, only 5 (FIVE !!!) muslim girls were excluded from french public schools because they refused to take off their scarves (most frequently this was a decision they made themselves against the advice of their families). For your information, three millions of « poor » french citizens and legal residents (whether or not they are of North african origin) receive 450-600 euros per month, with free public transportation and free health care. This is called « minimum revenue » and is highly efficient at preventing people from falling into extreme poverty. I am sure you realize that millions in the USA currently know first hand what is « extreme poverty » in a rich country. By the way, I am French, living in France, some of my relatives are African/Muslism and I worked two years in the USA.

[mobuto]

141. Actually, I'm not ignorant at all

My family is French, I speak French, I spend a lot of time in France, I read LeMonde and Liberation every day of the week and subscribe to L'Express. I don't, however, watch CNN International.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say at all.

1. French law does in fact ignore race - in that it is illegal for government to use race as any sort of metric. But that doesn't solve the problem at all. That's like the Republican argument that if government would only stop people from paying attention to race, and eliminate such "dividers" as Affirmative Action, then we'd truly have a color blind society. Well, sorry - the world doesn't work that way. There may not be any sort of official discrimination if France, but you're living in a vacuum if you think that official discrimination is the problem. The French government's approach has been to say that if you ignore racism, if you ignore race, it'll just go away. That's just nuts.

2. I never criticized the French social safety net. I'm not sure why you think I did. What I did criticize was the French socio-economic system, where Muslims face a glass ceiling that prevents them from rising above the bottom strata. There are now two classes of citizens - those who live in La Banlieue, and everybody else. That's the issue, I'm certainly not criticizing public transportation.

For your information, in the past ten years, only 5 (FIVE !!!) muslim girls were excluded from french public schools because they refused to take off their scarves (most frequently this was a decision they made themselves against the advice of their families).

I'm not sure why you think that's a point against me. I think that's a good thing.

By the way, I am French, living in France, some of my relatives are African/Muslism and I worked two years in the USA.

By the way I am American, living in America, almost all of my relatives are French, and I've worked one year in France.

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. It appears they have decided to permit men to wear beards

Beards, of course, can be worn for religious reasons, cultural reasons, or simply personal preference.

Quite different than headscarves, which regardless of why they are worn, are almost exclusively worn by women.

[Calico4000]

81. The irony is amazing

Funny how US public schools are allowed to FORCE students to shave a beard off, yet some how it is OH SO MUCH WORSE when it's another nation mandating beards (or lack of).

When you are on the streets protesting the oppresion in your own nation then come cry about the French. In the meantime spare us the hypocrisy.

[pennylane100]

17. I totally agree with the ban.

Schools are a place of learning and overt displays of religion should be barred. However what I find most ironic is criticism over this ban that comes from such countries as Saudia Arabia and Egypt where women have no rights (as in Saudi) or precious few (as in Egypt). These countries need to get their own houses in order first.

[thingfish]

21. It's a DAMN far slide down the slippery slope of authoritarianism.

The fact that assholes are criticizing it (the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt) doesn't mitigate the fact that it's a horrendous law. If it happened here, y'all'd be freaking the fuck out right about now.

[mobuto]

24. Totally different

1. Muslims have not been the subject of widespread and historic discrimination in this country the way they have been in France. Even after September 11, there really is no comparison. Integrating Muslims into French society is by far the biggest crisis facing that country. Everything else, including religious freedom - which is really not endangered in a country as open as France - is subordiante.

2. I'd be screaming bloody murder in this country if this happened, even if we did need something like this - which we don't - simply because it would be illegal. The First Amendment allows for the free exercise of religion, and that would be the issue. But France has no First Amendment.

The purpose of this law is to HELP religious and ethnic minorities escape the grasp of endemic discrimination, not to hurt them. You've got to remember that. Saudi Arabia et al. oppose this law precisely because it will lower the divisions. Because Islamist extremists depend on segregation and discrimination in the West as bete-noir for fundraising and recruitment. Happy French Muslims are a lot less likely to fly planes into office towers than are unhappy French Muslims.

[thingfish]

26. The French aren't Martians. They're the West. Like us.

I am honestly flabbergasted that anybody supports this atrocious legislation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. The French

Get carte blanche even when they act like bigots.

[mobuto]

30. The French already act like bigots

They've managed to exclude one tenth of their population from society. Muslims don't hold high-paying jobs in any sector of the economy, they cannot be elected to office anywhere in the country, they cannot socialize with the "French." This is a crisis. If this legislation manages to erode the wall of separation between Muslims and "native French" then it will have been worthwhile. That's certainly the intention.

[thingfish]

34. Your solution: Discriminate MORE!

Good plan, Mobuto.

[mobuto]

36. What does that mean?

My solution - which isn't exactly mine by the way, I just agree with it - is to remove the superficial barriers that separate the races.

You can call that discrimination if you want - I really don't care what labels you want to use. The net result is what's important, and it will mean less discrimination for French Muslims and a much greater shot of academic, economic, and political success for French Muslim youth.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. OK, it's discrimination

Yes, it is. Not all peoples WANT to remove the barriers that separate religions or races. Why not just mandate everybody spraypaint their bodies purple?

[mobuto]

43. Fine spraypaint everybody purple

I'm sure if you polled African-Americans in Mississippi eighty years ago and asked them if they'd be willing to paint themselves purple if that meant they could get jobs, an education and - oh yeah - avoid being lynched, I'm sure you'd get a rather enthusiastic welcome.

Because that's the situation in France right now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Less than you think

I know my grandparents wouldn't have denied their race and who they were just to get along.

[mobuto]

49. Then that's stupid

Nobody's talking about erasing the cultural identity of French Muslims. What they are doing is removing one outward physical barrier to integration. And that's a mighty small price to pay for a decent life.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Of course they are

Forcing people to abandon how they wish to dress (which is based on both religion and culture) is indeed erasing their cultural identity. And no, losing your whole identity is NOT a "mighty small price" for anything.

[mobuto]

57. Who's losing who's "whole identity"?

Give me a break.

You might as well argue that mandatory Star-of-David armbands increase Jews' cultural identity. Well they just might, but at far too high of a price.

And that's the issue.

There's a lot more to being a Muslim than wearing a headscarf.

In this case, you have a huge segment of the population that is segregated largely because of its clothing. Nobody's going to worship some other God because they're not allowed to look different, but what they are going to do is have the opportunity to succeed in society.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. What people CHOOSE to wear

If many Jewish people wish to wear stars of David on their sleeves, that is their choice. Perhaps it will come into fashion to recall Yom Hashoah (April 18, 2004) or Holocaust Remembrance Day. Hell, though I'm not Jewish, I might wear on as well that day.

Yes, "there's a lot more to being a Muslim than wearing a headscarf." And how that is decided IS up to the individual. If they wish to wear headscarves, turbans or stars of David, so be it.

[termo]

78. ... IS up to the individual

then let all the middle east women be equal in right to men, and wear what they want, not what they must wear.

<sarcasm>
let us hope one day the testimony of one woman is worth that of one man...
</sarcasm>

about holocaust, we must never forget.

[Paschall]

116. That's a bit hyperbolic, mobuto

While the religious affiliation of French politicians is generally not known because that information is protected by privacy laws and cannot be revealed by third parties (the press), we do have a Muslim cabinet member. And a Muslim "prefect"--the highest state authority in one of our governmental subdivisions--was just named by Chirac.

And the native French do indeed "socialize" with French Muslims. My French sister-in-law is of Algerian (Muslim) origin. Her children, my French nephew- and niece-"in-law," are named Fatima and Kalid.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that the rise in Islamic fundamentalism--and its encroachment in public affairs--is a relatively recent phenomenon in France, having begun only five years or so ago. The generation of North African and Sub-Saharan Muslims who immigrated to France in massive numbers during reconstruction after World War II adheres to the French principle of secularism. These adults are now stunned by the "religiosity" of their children, who in numerous cases have rejected their parents for their "western decadence."

[mobuto]

133. Ok, fine

I spend a lot of time in France, but you're right, I was being a bit hyperbolic. I didn't mean to imply that all French are racists or that no Arab Muslims are in positions of power or authority. But the exceptions should not be allowed to prove the rule. This all reminds me of how Paul Robeson was asked by a Southern segregationist, in the 1930s, how discrimination could possibly exist in this country - since of course he was black and he was a millionaire.

That there is some intercourse between "French" and Muslim populations, or that some Muslims have indeed done well and succesfully integrated themselves into French society, do not negate the fact that those are indeed the exceptions and that inequality and ghettoization are the norm.

These adults are now stunned by the "religiosity" of their children, who in numerous cases have rejected their parents for their "western decadence."

You're absolutely right. And I would argue that the reason that this generation is turning to fundamentalism is in large part due to Muslims' growing disillusionment with the dream of a happy future in a secular France, because after decades they still have not been welcomed into French society.

[BonjourUSA]

145. You're absolutely right. It's a failure.

Many French Muslim families live only with state subsidies for many, many years. Their kids have never seen their father or mother to get up in the morning for going at work. Parents lost their authority and the kids got no reference. The fundies can replace the families.

The need of religion concerns a very little part of the French Muslim youth, its religious pratice is a little more important (9%) than for the French population all religions included (4%). The wearing of the religious symbols in the public schools is still freak, but we have to reaffirm firmly the secular principle which is the foundation of the French society and the greatest warranty of freedom for our mind of criticism and our way of life

[thingfish]

33. Removed by author

I see from another of your posts that you don't support it.

[mobuto]

28. No, there's a very different situation

The US is a nation of immigrants. We're psychologically prepared to deal with immigrants, because we've been dealing with them for 200 years. Until recently, however, France hadn't seen any significant immigration.

And because of that inexperience, Franc has more or less failed to integrate an enormous group of immigrants into its society. They are margianalized, disenfranchised and totally segregated in a way that has never happened to any immigrant group in the United States*.

If France cannot integrate its minorities into society, it will be torn apart. This crisis is the biggest issue in France - it is in many ways the only issue. If you follow French politics, you'll know that.


* I'm not counting African-Americans as an immigrant group, because that's a whole other can of worms. I'm only counting voluntary immigrants.

[thingfish]

39. Bottom line: If it happened here, you would be up in arms.

x

[mobuto]

44. You miss the point

1. We don't need that kind of legislation here because we don't have the same problem the French do. The French have a very legitimate reason for banning head-scarves; we don't.

2. Banning head-scarves would violate the First Amendment. The French have no First Amendment. Ergo no problem.

[thingfish]

63. What is that "very legitimate reason" again?

You have yet to mention one.

[mobuto]

151. Um

Integrating a segregated and disenfranchised minority into French society, by eliminating a barrier between students in its culture and the larger school population.

[DUmbrella]

20. To the people who are against this

I haven't yet decided where I stand on this. But one thing I do believe is that some line needs to be drawn somewhere. What if these children weren't only concerned with the hijab. What if someone wants to send their kids to school in a full body burqa? Should that be allowed also?

Anyway, I always thought that the rule was that women only had to wear headscarves after they're married - no?

Also, I think this is related. This law actually goes much deeper than the headscarf issue. That is only what is getting played up most in the news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=6&u=/nm/20040210/wl_nm/religion_france_headscarves_dc

“Teachers have complained in recent years of growing problems with Muslim pupils who interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews; boycott classes on human reproduction, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend physical education.

They have also reported that Muslim pupils sometimes repeat anti-Semitic themes they see on Arabic satellite television. Paris is trying to block transmission of the Al Manar station, run by Lebanon's Hizbollah party. “

Is that freedom of expression too? Not cool.

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. The Koran says men and women must dress modestly

There are some hadith (sayings of the Prophet) which are interpreted by some to mandate hijab.

The custom of women coverning their heads predates Islam by several centuries. When St. Paul (Bible) says women should do it, he was not sugggesting an innovation, but expressing approval of a long-standing tradition.

The marriage thing I think has more to do with some Orthodox Jews; women shave their heads when they marry and cover them with scarves, or interestingly, wigs!

If you go to the Holy Lands, you will see women of all faiths using head coverings, and for many women, it is more of a cultural norm than a religious doctrine, just as many western women cover their breasts, while some in South America or Africa do not.

[rman]

154. how would banning headscarfs solve the problems you cite?

> "Teachers have complained in recent years of growing problems with Muslim pupils who interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews; boycott classes on human reproduction, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend physical education."

I don't think them doing these things depends on them wearing a headscarf or not, do you?

> "They have also reported that Muslim pupils sometimes repeat anti-Semitic themes they see on Arabic satellite television. Paris is trying to block transmission of the Al Manar station, run by Lebanon's Hizbollah party. “

Even if the latter should not be allowed as freedom of expression, does that mean the wearing of headscarfs should also not be alowed as freedom of expression?

[thingfish]

22. If it happened here, y'all would be freaking.

And don't try to deny it.

[mainer]

37. Poor France struggling with a much bigger problem than headscarves

Muslims make up 8 % of the French population now. French school teachers complain that they can no longer teach about the Holocaust in class because the Muslim students protest and raise a ruckus. Muslim students are refusing to participate in physical education. They refuse to allow the teaching of reproductive biology in class because it's "immodest." They are harrassing Jewish students, demanding separate swimming pools for boys and girls, and in general, allowing religious fundamentalism to dictate educational standards.

The French are really in a tough place. Head scarves are a trivial detail when the real issue is: how do you keep religion out of the classroom?

I don't know, but I sympathize with them. A determinedly secular government, as in France, has no choice but to keep religion out of the schools or it will only lead to more conflict.

[mobuto]

40. It goes both ways as well

Muslims are almost totally excluded from higher education, well-paying jobs, and elective office. There is institutional French racism against them, and it exists despite the fact that the French government wants to ignore it.

That's why drastic action needs to be taken to integrate the two halves of French society - and if this does anything, it will be worth it.

Sarkozy is a very dangerous man, but he understands the real issues of immigration and integration better perhaps than any other French politician. For that he should be commended.

[DuctapeFatwa]

50. The purpose is not to integrate. On the contrary, the purpose is to reduce

the visibility of Muslims on the public streets, and I think it will succeed in doing that.

Any society who truly wishes immigrants to "assimilate" is hardly going to voluntarily relinquish their single greatest weapon in that battle - 6 or 7 hours a day in public schools!

[mobuto]

56. Huh?

Nobody is forbidding the wearing of head-coverings in public, only in public schools. You can still wear your burka on the metro.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

As for "reducing" Muslims, you should know that societies that wish to "reduce" their minorities do so by increasing their visibility. Hence Nazi Germany, which forced its Jews, Roma, gays, etc. to wear identifying armbands. This is exactly the opposite of that.

Any society who truly wishes immigrants to "assimilate" is hardly going to voluntarily relinquish their single greatest weapon in that battle - 6 or 7 hours a day in public schools!

What this does is make that single greatest weapon a lot more effective by making it easier for Muslim students to interact with "French" students and teachers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. I thought Muslims weren't getting educated

and now this policy makes school even less inviting for them.

[DuctapeFatwa]

60. OK, suppose you moved to the Amazon, and they passed a law there

that said your daughters could not attend public schools unless they exposed their breasts.

How many days would you send them to the public school topless?

The intent of the bill is to force Muslim girls OUT of the public schools and into the madrassas. Neither girls nor their parents who feel the same cultural bond with a headscarf that a French woman feels with her blouse are going to send their girls to schools that ban scarves on women.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Either that

Or it forces them to assimilate and stop being some them there pesky Muslims who look different.

[DuctapeFatwa]

65. Assimilation cannot be forced. Public school is the closest you can get

and that only if you move heaven and earth to get your most unassimilated population in there and keep them there.

Also, assimilation does not mean a suppression or rejection of one's own culture, but an acceptance of those of others.

I will not teach you to accept my culture by refusing to accept yours.

There are plenty of assimilated, English-speaking, Avril Lavigne (may God help them) listening, GAP jeans wearing, JLo "Still" spritzing, American Idol TIVO-ing, business school-applying, rollerblading, gum-snapping, whatEVER-hmmphing Muslim girls in the US and elsewhere - who wear hijab.

[PsychoDad]

93. LOL. Public school is a wonderful thing.

"There are plenty of assimilated, English-speaking, Avril Lavigne (may God help them) listening, GAP jeans wearing, JLo "Still" spritzing, American Idol TIVO-ing, business school-applying, rollerblading, gum-snapping, whatEVER-hmmphing Muslim girls in the US and elsewhere - who wear hijab." Very true, Sounds like my 13 yo daughter, Alhamdulilah. :)

But back to "Public school is a wonderful thing", where else can you meet so many people of different sizes, shapes and colors, not to mention races and creeds, on a more or less equal footing. The education doesn't stop at the teachers, I remember the free exchange of learning about others student's lives as being a wonderful and eye opening experience. There is a lot of information exchanged when someone asks, "what is that thing?", "Why are you wearing that?" It was in public school that I met friends from around the world. It's a great place to learn tolerance, and that even given our differences, we members of the human family are all the same inside.

But that learning and tolerance has to go both ways. The French cannot expect Muslims to accept French culture, if they are trying to expunge the cultural distinctiveness of Muslims, or anyone else for that matter.

[bicentennial_baby]

62. Exactly

"The intent of the bill is to force Muslim girls OUT of the public schools and into the madrassas."

If it's not the intent, it will most definitely be the result of this ban. Why people don't see the problem with all of this is beyond me.

[DuctapeFatwa]

68. I think it is because they don't see that as a problem

Maybe because of the elections, there is a tendency to look at things from the standpoint of politicians.

Reducing the visible presence of Muslims in public schools (and by extension, elsewhere, since public school attendance tends to increase dramatically other public places a young girl goes) is a plus for politicos who wish to please conservative anti-immigrant, ultra-Nationalist segments of the population, who like their US counterparts, are among those most likely to vote and contribute to political campaigns.

[Calico4000]

83. Oh please

Are you ready to spread the right wing hate speech that all muslims are radicals? Maybe if you actually spent some time WITH muslims instead of talking about them you might actually learn something.

Most muslims would continue to go to school regardless of the ban. Only the fundamentalists (a VERY VERY small amount of the population) would refuse to go to school afterward. That is assuming they are even going to public school in the first place. The fundamentalists generally go to strictly muslim school.

[bicentennial_baby]

87. Actually

I originally heard this argument from two female Muslim commentators on Nightline. They are deeply concerned about the possibility of these girls being shuttled off to Islamic-only schools where they will be more likely to be exposed to Islamic extremism than if they had been able to stay in public school, wearing the hijab. Here's one of the women's websites:

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

[mainer]

73. But what do we do about the teachers' concerns?

The teachers in France complain that they cannot teach the Holocaust ecause of protests by Muslim students. The teachers cannot teach reproductive biology. The teachers cannot teach physical education. Fundamentalist students, by their protests, are preventing the education of other students who are NOT Muslim.

Imagine it this way. Fundamentalist Christian students here try to prevent a teacher from teaching evolution. Wouldn't you respond by saying: take ALL religion out of the classroom?

Muslim girls can still wear their headscarves on the way to school. But once inside, they will have to take them off, just as Jewish boys will have to take off their yarmulkes.

It's true that Muslims are discriminated against in the job market in France. But the French will tell you it's because Muslims refuse to assimilate, while other minorities in France who HAVE assimilated (East Asians, for example) face a much easier time of it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. The same as always

Children who act out are given detention ro are suspended or worse. Children who don't learn fail.

As an aside, I don't get the comment about physical education.

[Calico4000]

85. "Act out"

So now you want to silence muslim beliefs with punishment? Hmmm... So let me understand this. You (supposedly) have a problem with this ban because it violates religious freedom. Yet, when their religion tells them phys ed, sex ed, etc is wrong, you want to silence their protest with punishment. Hmmm... true colors showing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. LOL

I want to silence classroom disruption. Families around the world object to the teaching of certain subjects. Some, like sex ed, allow them to opt out and they should, if they choose, make that choice. However, under no circumstances should any child be allowed to disrupt the classroom and the teaching involved.

[Calico4000]

111. Ok

So do you recoginize the FACT that dress can (believe it or not) cause a disruption in the classroom? If you say no I don't believe you.

You know full well dress can and does cause a disruption. Yet, you are willing to allow that disruption on religious grounds. Then on the other hand when there is a speech disruption on religious grounds you are fully in support of putting it down with punishment. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

[Muddleoftheroad]

113. Anything CAN cause a disruption

A kid who knows all the answers can still be disruptive. That doesn't mean we need a law to stop kids from answering more than twice per class.

Yes, actually I AM, "willing to allow that disruption on religious grounds." Up to a point. Partially because I don't accept that looking different or praying to different names of God is at all disruptive. In fact, the kids or teachers who find it disruptive are really the problem.

[termo]

86. physical education

boys and girls playing together, running, swimming, etc.. is considered as bad by some fundamentalist.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Boys and girls learning together is considered bad by some

The PUBLIC schools should now allow bigotry of any sort. If those children do not participate because of religious objections, they would probably have to complete some sort of outside phys ed program.

[termo]

97. history, natural science, ...

and if a student doesn't want to learn WW 2...
or the explanation of the human body imcluding the reproduction organs, or darwin...

you are looking for a system "a la carte", but law is for a good reason forcing children to go to school up to 16 years old.

what is your position when law and religion/culture are imcompatible ?

do you think it should be legal to allow parents to force a daughter to wed somebody ? the law says no, some cultures (with an s) says yes.

then ?

[Muddleoftheroad]

110. You ask a lot without giving much info

There are limits to how much schools can tolerate the ala carte approach. (Isn't it funny how we end up using French phrases for all this?)

Inevitiably there will be issues. At some point, after negotiations between the parties, the government must make some decisions about what is taught.

Governments set the legal age for wedding and for age of consent, not religions.

[DuctapeFatwa]

79. Getting them out of public schools where history is taught will definitely

solve the problem of them arguing with teachers about the Holocaust.

And removing them from a multi-cultural setting where they get to know kids from other cultures and other faith traditions will smoothly jump over any awkward adjustment phases.

[PsychoDad]

94. Holocaust revisionist history...

Is not limited to just muslims. In fact, most muslims I know, myself included, recognize the horrible crimes perpitrated by the nazis upon the Jews, Homosexuals, Jehova's witnesses, Rom and others.

There are a lot of white american christians that propogate this revisionist crap right here in america... and I don't see how banning Crosses from Public Schools would solve the problem.

[DemExpat]

98. The point is, that in France, and other European countries, secularization

of society is almost complete!

While religious conservatism and much of the growing anti-Semitism, is voiced from the Muslim population here.

It is more of an attempt to stem the tide of activist religious conservatism, erosion of separation of church and state, and to promote equality of the sexes, than of anti-Muslim sentiment imo.

DemEx

[Muddleoftheroad]

114. You are still forcibly converting people

To secularization when they don't want it.

That's just as bad as conversion to a religion by force.

[DemExpat]

118. In public institutions ONLY. Not forcing conversion, forcing neutrality

within these institutions.

It is the European secular Civil Society that needs to be protected here, and this legislation is an attempt to do so.

DemEx

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. Why does secular civil society need protecting

Is it collapsing? Why does anyone care anyhow? If you have to abuse people to protect it, maybe it's not worth it.

[DemExpat]

132. Secularization needs protection to prevent religious groups

from politically influencing the institutions which are supposed to be neutral in a secular society.

It prevents fundies from removing evolution theory, sexual development and birth control, and other issues from lessons in the classroom because it does not go along with religious beliefs!
From what I understand, this is taking place in the US in some areas at this time.

It prevents someone like Ashcroft from holding prayer sessions before work each day in a government office....

Secular society creates an aire of impartiality and neutrality so that everyone will feel that their viewpoint, religion, (or lack of one) is respected.
This actually protects religious groups as it prevents one from becoming too dominant/powerful within the social institutions.

It discourages overt religious symbols/expressions in the courts, schools, government offices, other institutions.

This is a vitally important issue, one that I absolutely cherish and defend living here in The Netherlands.

DemEx

[Muddleoftheroad]

134. Glad it's in the Netherlands and not here

While religions don't influence policy, RELIGIOUS PEOPLE can and do. They are entitled to. It's their right to do so.

Secular society is fine, as long as it is not so secular that people are not allowed the freedom to be religious, as our friends the French are doing.

[DemExpat]

137. Well, that is a people's choice, isn't it?

Some European countries do NOT want people influencing policy based on religious beliefs.

People are allowed to be as religious as they want outside of public institutions....

The best of both worlds imo - neutrality within shared institutions, personal/ethnic/religious identities strongly expressed outside these institutions and in private.

:kick:

DemEx

[Muddleoftheroad]

138. Choices

Yes, it is the choice of some nations to pass laws that discriminate. America did that for hundreds of years. Now France emulates us.

A public institution has no right to tell me how religious I wish to be. In fact, were I in France, I would violate the ban on a daily basis and dare the Powers That Be to act.

[DemExpat]

140. This law is for all religious symbols....and is to protect everybody's

freedoms, not just the religious ones...

Some schools in the US changing curriculum are influencing children, could be your children - do they have that right?

DemEx

[Muddleoftheroad]

142. Ve are going to protect your freedoms

By taking zem away.

Boy that is wrong.

[DemExpat]

148. Not at all the same imo...

As stated above, freedoms are not restricted, opinions not forbidden....but within shared institutions religion and its expressions are to be kept private - neutrality and equality paramount.

This to protect everybody's view and freedom. Sounds fair, smart, and a valid argument to me.

Freedoms are restricted everyday in society - a cost of living together in one space....


DemEx

[Muddleoftheroad]

150. Of course freedom is restricted

You are telling religious folks they can't do as their religion commands. Naturally, anyone who is strongly religious will refuse and, in effect, be banned from the totalitarian schools.

[DemExpat]

139. Are you happy with fundy religious influence in some schools there?

Influencing abortion legislation?
Sitting in the federal and Supreme Courts?

I'm not, and would be extremely uncomfortable about their power in institutions greatly influencing my and my children's lives!

A more secularized society in the US would help prevent this extremist influence.

France fears this influence developing, and is trying to nip it in the bud...

DemEx

[Muddleoftheroad]

143. Depends what you mean

Do I disagree with them? Yes. Do I want the government preventing them from expressing opinions? A resounding no.

[DemExpat]

149. Expressing opinions is slightly different from policy/curriculum

changes/pressure/disruption!

imho...

DemEx

[Calico4000]

82. Hmmm

You speak of tolerance and diversity. Yet you are so against helping to end segregation. (which is what this is intended to do) I wonder exactly what YOUR motivation is...

[PsychoDad]

99. segregation

The French Muslim students are not currently segregated, to claim so is disingenious and belittles what segregation was.

These students are in the same classes, and in the same schools, learning the same curriculum. Segregation would be if they were singled out and excluded. Hence, no segregation.

The issue is one of a basic human right to self expression, in this case the expression of a religious identity separate from the secular/Christian cultural French mainstream.

Don't make this piece of legislation sound like France's answer to Rev. King's Atlanta march.. It is the opposite of freedom, it is restriction.

[DemExpat]

102. A matter of perspective..the French do see it as legislation to preserve

their secular society - their freedom from religious expressions - and possible increasing divisions - in public institutions.

A majority of the French Muslims do not oppose this bill - perhaps moderate/liberal Muslims see the wisdom in this too?

DemEx

[PsychoDad]

105. freedom from religion.

The bill only covers "large" expressions of religious identity. Small crosses, like those worn by many catholic girls, are still permitted, as are small stars of David, which can be tucked away , so as not to offend the eyes of a secular Frenchman. Those who are most obviously targeted are the Muslim girls who wish to wear hijab, and orthodox Jews who wish to conform to their cultural identity.

In my humble opinion, these laws will only serve to further polarize and separate the factions involved, not help further inclusion.

I guess I'm just not a "moderate/liberal" enough Muslim, Subahannalah, as I don't see the wisdom in a policy of exclusion and persecution

[DemExpat]

108. It is a risk, granted that. But it is not an act of persecution imho.

It is an act of preservation of secular ideals in public institutions - everywhere else the dress and symbols can flourish.

Even moderate Muslims here fear Islamic fundamentalism and its encroachment on secular ideals.
Christian fundamentalism like in the US is practically non-existant here, so Islamic conservatism, which does exist, is not encouraged, to put it politely.

Conservative Christians in the US wanting to ban all abortions, change school curriculum to suit Creationism, ban the excesses of popular cultural expression - this is comparable to the religious force that the French (and other European countries) wish to harnass before it gets out of hand.

A good article imo.
International Herald Tribune (from NYT)
http://www.iht.com/articles/129000.html

DemEx

[PsychoDad]

109. Christian fundamentalism

Is a predominantly American phenomenon, but would we want to drive it underground, where it could fester and grow unseen?

What the France are doing, IMO, is the opposite of what out founding fathers did. Our Founding fathers wanted a nation of inclusion, not assimilation, a nation where all ideas could be shown in the light of day and entered into the public discourse, and, coincidentally, whack ideas could be seen for what they are... Not forced underground where they could fester and spawn among others outside the view of society.

It's my opinion that our strength as a people, American or as the human race, is dependent on our diversity, not upon or homogeneity. It is the lone individual, with all her flaws and differences that drives change, not the politics of the herd. we grow as individuals, as a nation, and as human beings by including and learning from others, not by "assimilating" them by force into the status quo. When we do attempt to force others to our way of thinking we only either create sheep, or those who will fight to preserve their identity and individuality.

I see France as doing the opposite from Inclusion. And as a Muslim, and American, and a citizen of the world, who values human dignity and the right of the individual to be an individual, I believe it is in my right, nay , my responsibility to state my concerns.

And, for the life of me, I can't see how promoting homogamy of society is particularly moderate or liberal...


Peace.

[DemExpat]

117. The problem with the modern world is cohesion imo...

and with growing diversity everywhere, grounds for social cohesion are getting shakier.
Governments will have to demand some degree of assimilation in order to preserve the unity of the nation/culture/society.

America had the the spirit of a great new world with boundless resources and opportunities to channel diversity and create union/a sense of common purpose and ground among all of the diverse newcomers. Until more modern times, immigrants (from Europe) did assimimilate and become "Americans" in the big melting pot...


What France is doing is an attempt to preserve the values that a huge majority of the people living there wish to hold onto - a clear separation of church and state in public institutions - to provide a basis for neutrality - not necessarily homogeneity imo. Outside of these institutions people are free to express any diversity that they want to.

This is neither modern or liberal - because this is supported by a large majority of the French people throughout the entire political spectum - although it IS also supported by moderate/liberal Muslims in Europe who also do not want conservative/fundamentalist forces gaining strength in European civil society.

DemEx

[PsychoDad]

120. the big melting pot

"Until more modern times, immigrants (from Europe) did assimilate and become "Americans" in the big melting pot..."

But that "assimilation" was inclusion in the melting pot and it went both ways. They became "us" and we became "them" Our language grew, and so did the American culture, revitalized by each new wave of people and ideas. We gained from the diversity and inclusion of these new people.. Pizza, curry, hamburgers, corned beef, chow mein.. Polka, rhythm and blues, Shakespeare and Rumi. Chinese and Eastern Jewish immigrants were allowed to retain their cultural and religious dress. No one was forced by law to wear or not wear any particular clothing.

I know we're not perfect, but look at America, we are the product of acceptance and inclusion. We are not a culture, we are all cultures. That used to be our greatest strength.. even if it was a painful process at times.

I just see "neutrality" as being stagnation and conformity to the herd mentality. I understand what the French want to do, I still see these laws being reactionary to the fact that some find people who are different than themselves as troubling, instead of exciting and interesting.

I think you are correct about cohesion, but my solution would be acceptance and tolerance, not an attempt at assimulation.

Imo- the Germans are being more honest about their motives.

peace

[DemExpat]

121. Then we agree about cohesion , but acceptance and tolerance

must also go both ways....we become (accept) them and they become (accept) us.
And therein lies a big part of the problem imo - in that most conservative religious thought is not very accepting, not very open to "others", and not respectful of other religions or absence of religion (agnosticism/atheism) .....

Conservative Muslims in Europe are starting to be more vocal in their rejection of/disdain for "decadent" Western morals/culture/ideals.
And when groups of Muslim students start to demand prayer rooms/periods, refuse to take part in certain courses (Biology, gym), and disrupt history classes in Public Schools, then it is time to look for solutions.

This is happening here in Holland as well.

Before the dam breaks and every religious and ethnic group demands special treatment/excusal from certain courses or lessons, neutrality being imposed in schools and other public institutions seems to me to be the best way to try to go.

Moderate, more assimilated Mulsim groups here in Holland are starting to become more vocal in expressing their dismay and opposition to the more conservative and radical Muslim elements that are frequently in the news here...

It will certainly be interesting to see how this evolves.

DemEx

[SoCalDem]

66. Colonial adventurism has its karma..

If I recall, a lot of the Muslims who live in France are "Algerian Muslims"..

Western countries who dabble in foreign policy and fight nasty little wars, often end up with the 'refugees' of those wars..

Natural immigration , where people come to a place where they really want to go, and are welcomed because they have something that their new country needs, hardly exists anymore.

If a country wants to remain "pure", they have to limit immigration and enforce assimilation.. France apparently is aiming for the assimilation plan, and the Muslims are resisting..

Whoever has the law on their side will eventually prevail.. Perhaps France can help the ones who choose to leave, with relocation expenses..


A lot of the problems we have her in the US (regarding immigration) is because of the continuing fascination with the former homeland.. As much as people say they want to blend in, they really do not want to.. They want to maintain their "roots" and those roots grow into trees...and then forests...

France has a real problem on its hands.. The Muslim population in their country is growing, and they see more and more people who either cannot or will not become "French".. There is something to be said about the "looks different" aspect, but then we know about that here too...don't we???


People cannot be forced to do anything, and be happy about it.. They either have to accept it, or move..


As for the schools, I would actually favor uniforms and NO religious symbols of ANY kind.. France is a secular nation, and if one is ultra-religious, then maybe France is not where they should live..

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Ah, their way or the highway is it?

Funny, I hear that a lot here as well.

[SoCalDem]

75. They are talking about PUBLIC schools..SECULAR schools

There was a time when people were not as "in-your-face" about beliefs and opinions, but those days are gone.. Religion and politics have been elevated to a constant reminder of "other-ness" and if a country wants to end that practice, and they have the wherewithal (and stomach) to enforce it, they will do it..

School is NOT the place for prosthelytizing.. Go to church if you want religion... and I have heard time and time again, that the "headscarf" is NOT mandated in the Koran.. I believe that the Koran just asks that women be "modest" . There is a difference between Christina Aguilara and "modest"..

For years Catholics were "forbidden" to eat meat on Friday... that was relaxed.. So all who "sinned" in the past were forgiven?? It's all in the interpretation..

School uniforms are the answer.. and if there is a beret or hat in the mix, they could cover their hair with that..

There has to be a way to "solve" this..

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. So you would deny public education

Some people LIKE having a state of "other-ness." The state has no right to take that away.

It is not prosthelytizing to dress modestly or to wear a kippa or cross.

I don't care that the "headscarf" is NOT mandated in the Koran. It IS mandated by Muslim religious leaders and it is THEIR interpretation of the Koran, not the state's, that is at issue.

Yes, interpretations change, but the state can't force children to eat meat on Friday if their religion forbids it. If it tries, it will have low attendance on Friday.

There SHOULD be a way to solve this, there doesn't HAVE to be. Even then, this law would prevent people from wearing a cross or star of David. That is none of the state's business.

[SoCalDem]

96. Public schools used to have dress codes.. even in the US

France has a right to define the way their public schools operate.. It's that simple..

In the 60's in Kansas we were not allowed to wear ANY jewelry. (religious or otherwise)..
No caps or hats
No denim
No "sports" shoes (back then it meant tennis shoes)
No slacks for girls


The whole idea that students can (or should) dictate what they will wear or not wear to school is a very recent thing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. Schools can still mandate what to wear

They just can't single out items based on religion. That's what this is, a misguided and decidedly parochial attempt by France to force all them dang furreners to become THEIR image of what French should be -- whether they like it or not.

[termo]

72. and no political symbols as well

there is an exception for the Alsace/Moselle part which was German in 1905... it is a shame, the law as to be the same everywhere.

BTW, France isn't doing a crusade in middle east right now.

[Paschall]

112. For the record...

When Algeria was French, the Algerians were full French citizens. That is why Islam has been the second largest religion in France (including ex-"colonies") for over 100 years.

[NewJerseyDem]

74. I'm divided on this

I certainly would oppose a move to do this in the United States. But, the United States is different from France. While the USA has been built from people of different religions from different places coming to live together, France is built on how unified the country has been in religion, language and culture. While there must be religious toleration, it is reasonable for France to believe that any advertisement of religious division is dangerous for the country's unity. Also, this is going on in school where it isn't the best place to debate religion, at least in the lower grades.

In general, I think that the situation is different in France, but the French have to be careful that they don't go too far with their "secularism" and begin to really crackdown on individual liberty.

[termo]

77. the law is clear, the state doesn't reconize any religion

nevertheless citizens have freedom of religion, religion is a private matter.

we are talking about children in school, some of them forced by their parents to wear a scarf.

what is the position of the US about abortion ? it looks like the religion is trying to impose a law for all the population... atheist are in danger :o)

history show how religions are a crackdown on individual liberties more than laicity.

[Flagg]

84. Approval of French headscarf law sparks ire of islamists in Arab world

APPROVAL OF FRENCH HEADSCARF LAW SPARKS IRE OF ISLAMISTS IN ARAB WORLD

CAIRO, Feb 10 (AFP) - The passage by France's National Assembly Tuesday of a bill to ban the Muslim headscarf from state schools has angered Islamists in the Arab world, who say the law will damage France's image in the region.
The number two of Egypt's influential Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Habib, warned that the adoption of the draft would "negatively affect the attitudes of Arabs and Muslims with respect to France and the French government.
"We would have preferred that the French parliament not adopt this bill and that the French government respect the feelings of Arabs and Muslims, as wearing the veil is an obligation in the Islamic faith," he said.
Habib, the deputy spiritual leader of the partly banned movement, noted that Paris had previously enjoyed a positive image in the region "due to its political positions, especially with respect to the Palestinian cause."
On Tuesday, the lower house of France's parliament, the National Assembly, adopted by a wide margin the first reading of a bill that would ban Muslim headscarves and other conspicuous religious insignia from state schools.
The initiative -- put forward by French President Jacques Chirac's ruling centre-right party and supported by the left-wing opposition Socialists after a compromise deal -- faced opposition from some Muslims and human rights groups.
It will now go on to the parliament's upper house, the Senate, for review and further amendments.
http://www.ttc.org/pa40210a.htm


these muslims don't have many friends left do they ?

[PsychoDad]

106. "these muslims don't have many friends left do they ?"

Looks like these Muslims and the French do have something in common..
:silly:

[Flagg]

124. we don't wanna be friends with the extreme right wing of the US

if that's what you meant
good riddance

50 died yesterday, 70 dead today in Irak
no WMDs found

I'll go out on a limb ans say that Fance was right

they can fatten up on freedom fries all they want and not visit our country (the Chinese will replace them anyway)

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. Parents are entitled to "force" their children to dress a certain way

That's part of parenting.

[DemExpat]

95. The secular societies of Europe... this bill is an attempt to preserve

the French one. I hope that it helps!
DemEx


3/4 of the French people back this bill, along with a majority of the Muslims in France....according to Dutch news sources.
http://www.omroep.nl/nos/nieuws/index.html



De communisten in het parlement waren tegen het voorstel, dat volgens hen "een deel van de bevolking stigmatiseert".

Only the Communist Party was against the proposal, that according to them stigmatizes a part of society....

Voor de Parti Socialiste gingen de plannen van de regering echter juist niet ver genoeg. De socialisten pleitten voor een verbod van alle "zichtbare" symbolen

For the Socialist Party the government plans were not far-reaching enough. The Socialists favor a ban of all visible symbols.....

[LeftCoast]

103. Does anyone know what the European Court of Justice has to say?

It seems to me that the ECJ will have something to say about the French ban on religious symbols. Does anyone know anything about EU civil rights law who could enlighten us? I thought the EU had passed a "Bill of Rights" which included freedom of religious expression...

[rman]

153. not just France. also Belgium, Netherlands, Germany

though those are still in the stage of talking about it.

And France is talking about prohibiting the wearing of a beard as religious symbol.

[Just Me]

104. I believe this post has accomplished what was intended - division.

The choice is simple: separation of religion and state (in a nondiscriminate manner) or allowing "freedom of expression of religious views in a state funded place" where the majority could suppress the minority.

People,...better "think" these issues through before allowing emotion and bias be the judge for your persecution of another sovereignty's genuine attempt to "integrate" a secular society.

[PsychoDad]

107. Something got missed during this debate.

So far we have been debating the School/religious identity question. Another French issue has gone completly unnoticed.

Check out this Jem..
Other proposals which got the president's backing included:

"enabling employers to regulate the wearing of religious symbols for reasons of safety or customer relations"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3330397.stm
At the bottom of the article.

As it has been pointed out, France wishes Freedom From Religion, not Freedom of Religion. Two very differnt things, two very differnt outcomes.

[Guaranteed]

146. You're right. This is religious persecution.

Look folks- if you consider yourself a social liberal, you're against this. It's flat out wrong. People should be able to wear whatever they want, as long as it's not indecent, wherever they are. That's called freedom.

[BonjourUSA]

119. Why do you often think that your way of life is the best for the world ?

read my post # 12

[Muddleoftheroad]

123. Because we're finicky about freedom

Read my post #13, responding to your post #12.

[BonjourUSA]

125. With Patriot I and II !!! ????

Today, the French lawyers and judges are in strike and protest in the streets because our Minister of Justice proposes a law much less "freedom killer" than Patriot I and II

[Muddleoftheroad]

135. Good for them

Too bad they are passive about this abuse.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

128. I've lived in France

their tradition of freedom surpasses our own in many ways. Especially FREE SPEECH. I'm sure BonjourUSA or Paschall can back me up on this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

136. Then that makes this worse

If you accept your argument, then this law is TRULY an amazing departure.

[BonjourUSA]

147. Perhaps... I don't know because....

I never lived in the greatest democracy of the world ;-)

[rman]

152. But, one can be a religious fanatic without wearing a religious symbol.

Much like the religious Right in the US, which did not prevent them from "stifling compassion in form of government services, tolerance in the form of equal rights, and humanity in the form of the pursuit of peace".

So, banning the wearing of religious symbols does nothing to prevent fundamentalists to "use the cover of religion to preach racism, homophobia, sexism, and hate".

On the contrary, more likely muslims will feel their expression of religion is being suppressed by this law, which provides furtile ground for religious fanatisism. This is in fact a good reason why government should not interfere with expression of religion (unless the expression of religion violates some law or regulation - but we don't need new laws to deal with that, because we already have laws to deal with it).