What about Chirac's anti Muslim turn

[arewethereyet]

http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=50600&id=200312211256000249040

Seems the French or at least Chirac are unhappy that Muslims have not been assimilating into French society and think its time to start forcing them to.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. History shows

that there is often prejudice and hostility against immigrant groups, especially if they are growing, as the Muslim population is in France. Unfortunately, this action is going to make Muslims world-wide feel more paranoid and thinking that the West is out to destroy their faith.

[IranianDemocrat]

2. Islamic veils are a symbol of sexism, oppression, and backwardness...

...no mater how anyone tries to spin it.

[Orangeone]

3. Why?

Because you say it is?

So it's not oppressive to let women decide what they want to wear?

[_Jumper_]

Why doesn't Islam require men to cover their heads?

Answer that and you will understand that IranianDemocrat was correct.

[DuctapeFatwa]

40. The Koran says that men and women should dress modestly

There are hadith that refer to head coverings for both men and women, and considering that the Prophet lived in a desert famous for sandstorms, it is damn good advice.

[_Jumper_]

43. So why don't Muslim men wear headscarves?

?

[DuctapeFatwa]

48. Some do. Not scarves, but kufis or turbans, hadith are, like scripture

subject to interpretation by human beings, and not all human beings interpret all scripture or all hadith in the same way.

There are some men who do not wear either silk, the color yellow, or gold jewelry because of hadith.

And like headscarves, kufis and turbans predate Islam by thousands of years :)

[IranianDemocrat]

52. This is nothing but spin.

The fact of the matter is that in Islam woman are treated as lower beings in comparison with men. That is why they have to cover themselves up(supposedly for modesty), but men do not have to.

[_Jumper_]

60. Female inferiority in Islam is enshrined in Islamic law

Of course, the other religious texts are equally sexist but the difference is that they were reformed. Islam has not been reformed despite existing for almost 1,400 years.

[DuctapeFatwa]

86. Do you think that misconceptions or facts, are more helpful?

I don't think that you intend to do so, but you leave yourself vulnerable to having your argument defeated by the suggestion that if Islam were actually practiced, female inferiority would suffer a crushing defeat.

For example, I am sure you are aware that one of the most egregious outrages practiced in many countries today is the marrying off of women without their consent, and I am sure you are aware that the Koran prohibits this.

Ditto all the various laws that make it difficult to impossible for women to earn money. The Koran specifically states that money a woman earns is HERS, not her father's, not her husband's.

In fact, most of the things that make such good TV are customs that existed in the time of Mohammad and that he was considered such a radical for preaching against.

[DuctapeFatwa]

64. I think you are confusing Islam with pre-Islamic customs

that are still practiced today in many parts of the world despite being in direct conflict with the teachings of the Koran.

In all fairness, one could say the same thing about the message of Christianity, in contrast to the incidence of loving one's neighbor as oneself in the actual practice in many so-called "Christian" countries.

[ParticipatoryDem]

100. kufis and turbans predate Islam by thousands of years

Cool. Prayer in school in America was common too. If America can ban religious acts then why should France be denied the same freedom to ban religous acts?

[DuctapeFatwa]

119. That is a very good point. Who decides what is a religious act?

Or in this case, symbol?

The problem is not so much with the law as it applies to little stars and crosses, although the argument could be made that those, too, are sometimes worn for non-religious reasons.

But wearing a scarf is often done as for cultural reasons, or no reason at all, we are talking about women getting dressed in the morning here.

The law makes no provision for how it is to be determined if any given scarf is in fact a religious symbol.

All that can be said of scarves, regarding the reasons for wearing them, can be said of beards, which are not banned.

Thus the legislation not only purports to deal with religious symbols, and then includes an ambiguous object, it applies itself only to ambiguous objects used by WOMEN, which reduces it to the kind of thing you would expect to come from some illiterate Mullah, not an industrialized western nation that claims to be a free and democratic society.

[Bush loves Jiang]

205. Errr...

I don't see French public schools endorsing Islam or leading Islamic prayers simply because women choose to cover their hair and parts of their face.

[shimmergal]

153. Yes.

My Indonesian Muslim roommate was quite insistent that the requirement about women wearing headscarves was an artifact of Arab culture transferred to Islamic practice. NOT an integral part of Islamic law. She and her peers interpreted modest dress to be more-or-less what the situation required. If you went swimming, you wore a swim suit, etc.

[ParticipatoryDem]

98. When was the last sandstorm in France

Why can the men drive and hold a job and not the women?

[wuushew]

101. Legally they can drive and hold jobs...they can choose not to as well

Nice strawman argument, but France is a long way from the Persian Gulf

[DuctapeFatwa]

103. Please see my previous posts re: Islam vs. pre-Islamic custom

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Legislating women's clothing is all those things

The arguments for forbidding or requiring scarves on women's heads are reverse mirrors of each other.

Neither France nor the Taliban wish to see women decide for themselves how they will dress.

[MrPrax]

21. So is porn...

and the pervasive objectivity that degrades women, but you don't see too many people complaining about that...and if they do they are labelled fema-nazis or right wing religious nutbars...

[Bombtrack]

4. that doesn't make him anti-muslim, it makes him a pragmatic statesmen

it is in French intrest to curb the islamitization of France.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Do you think this is because French Catholics are so weak in their faith?

Or are you saying that the message of Islam is so compelling that the Catholics must be protected from its allure, or both?

And why do you suppose that Chirac chose not to make the law applicable only to Muslims?

Women wear scarves, or not, for as many reasons as there are women, some Jewish and Christian women base their choice on religion, it is true.

What other rights of Jews and Christians to practice their religion do you favor abolishing?

[Bombtrack]

9. "french catholics?" I don't know what you're getting at

I do know that Muslims need to assimilate, in France and to the west in general when they live there.

I doubt that the majority of non-anti-semitic Frenchman like the anti-semitic reputation that France is gaining, mostly do to muslim hatecrimes, and I also suspect Chirac realizes that France is becoming the biggest base in western Europe for jihadists and terrorists, do to the simple fact that it has so many muslims, and he's trying to what all level headed westerners should do, get muslims to liberalize

[wuushew]

10. No one should be forced to assimilate to anything

Countries mean nothing they are an articifical constructs of land areas. Nor does any country or culture have the right to exist in perpetuity. If France and its its secular ideas die because of Islamification then so be it.

Historians will say that it was good of France to allow freedom of expression for those who lived during reign of the 5th Republic of France. People do what they will mostly out of economic necessity. They can realistically accomplish these goals by working and believing what they choose while in France. Liberalism is an idea not a country, it arises spontaneously worldwide on verying scales and it owes no alligence to a country or nationality. It is an immortal idea unlike the concept of nationality.


Do you think English should be the national tongue as well?

[_Jumper_]

27. Right, but France has a right to encourage assimilation

It also has a right to stop Muslim immigration if Muslims fail to assimilate.

Would you like your grandkids, particularly your granddaughters to live in an Islamic nation, given the state of Islam today and for the past 1400 years?

[wuushew]

51. i would take Islamic Golden Age over European shithole any day

A number of fortunate circumstances came together to make this golden age possible. Perhaps most significant was the creation of a vast empire without internal political boundaries, largely free from external attack. Trade began to flow freely across the Asian continent and beyond. The wisdom of India and China mingled with that of Persia, ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt. In most cases civilizations conquered by Islam remained administratively and intellectually intact, unlike those overrun by northern barbarians. Thanks in part to Muhammad's assertion that "the ink of scholars is more precious than the blood of martyrs," Islamic leaders valued -- in fact, sought out -- the intellectual treasures of their subject provinces. Further, the Muslim belief that Arabic, the language of the Quran, was the language of Allah himself, led to its standardization throughout the empire as the language of faith and power, and likewise of theology, philosophy, and the arts and sciences.

http://www.stormwind.com/common/islam.html

[_Jumper_]

61. Yeah imperialism rules!

Let's kill all their leaders and convert them to our religion! :eyes:

[wuushew]

70. Its true Christianity does suck that way

n/t

[_Jumper_]

73. What do you think happened in the lands the Arabs conquered?

Do you think those countries became 98-99% Muslim by choice?

[wuushew]

75. Islam Spread by the Sword ? The Myth and the Reality

Among the most widely believed myths about Islam in the West today is the myth of forcible conversion to Islam.

Many Westerners do believe that Islam is so widespread in the world today simply because of a "holy campaign of terror" carried out by the early Muslims to convert non-Muslims to Islam. Non-Muslims were offered the freedom to choose either Islam or death.

In a discussion with a Baptist Minister he said to me that "Muslims tend to kill non-Muslims and anyone who disagrees with them". In a syndicated column appearing in over 30 papers (on July 23rd, 1994) entitled, "Muslim persecution of Christians increasing" the author blames many Muslims countries for persecuting Christians then he quotes the Qur'an, "There is no compulsion in Religion" and ends the quote by rudely writing "Really?".

http://www.thetruereligion.org/swordspread.htm

[_Jumper_]

76. Can you provide a credible source?

Why hasn't the "one true religion" spread in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and East Asia? Are they too dumb to see the truth unlike those that were conquered by Arab and Turkish imperialists?

[PsychoDad]

148. It is spreading.

Islam is the 2nd largest religion in the world, and the fastist growing in the west.
And this spread is not due to the sword, but in spite of it.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

11. France is 12% Muslim

And the Muslim birthrate outpaces the French birthrate. I don't agree with banning headscarves, but I think many Europeans are frightened that the Muslim population will become a significant voting block in the years to come. Here is an article from foreign policy magazine:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/Ning/test_page.php?storyID=13576

SNIP
"Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.

A parallel process of Muslim enfranchisement is accompanying this population surge. Nearly half of the 5 million to 7 million Muslims in France are already French citizens."

[wuushew]

12. Israelis using same argument

That they will be outbred into extinction.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. Yes, but it's not about religion, it's about white and not

The Israelis who are concerned about the peril of Arab reproduction tend to be blond ethnic Europeans.

One seldom hears the same concerns either from Ethiopian Jews, or Middle Eastern ones.

And whites in Europe, the US, and Australia are displeased because all together, they constitute about 15% and dropping of the global population, and low melanin production is a recessive gene.

Muslims may be a popular scapegroup at the moment, and an oh-so-convenient one for the oilngun industry, but in the US there is also increasing hostility about the sons of indigenous genocide survivors as the process of reclaiming the continent progresses, and Australia is in a constant state of perma-pout because it just doesn't LIKE being in Asia, and secretly wishes somebody would make a great big tugboat and pull it WAY north.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. While I am unable to respond to personal attacks, I invite you

to share more of your views about the international terror threat of scarves on the heads on Muslim women, and why the same cloth object is not so dangerous when it rests on the head of a Jew or a Christian.

[Character Assassin]

23. What are you talking about?

And whites in Europe, the US, and Australia are displeased because all together, they constitute about 15% and dropping of the global population, and low melanin production is a recessive gene.

By all means, please support your contention. Most whites likely have no idea what percentage the comprise out of the world's total, and even more likely don't care.

Muslims may be a popular scapegroup at the moment, and an oh-so-convenient one for the oilngun industry, but in the US there is also increasing hostility about the sons of indigenous genocide survivors as the process of reclaiming the continent progresses, and Australia is in a constant state of perma-pout because it just doesn't LIKE being in Asia, and secretly wishes somebody would make a great big tugboat and pull it WAY north.

"the sons of indigenous genocide survivors as the process of reclaiming the continent progresses"?

What does that mean?

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. A few centuries ago, in the Americas, European invaders

attempted to eliminate the indigenous people of the continent (or continents, I believe they teach in US schools.)

While there were exceptions, generally the invaders from England employed a straightforward "killemall" strategy, while the Spanish invaders were encouraged by their pope at the time to rape as many women as possible, thus creating what his holiness referred to as "la santa raza," or the holy race.

The English efforts were unsuccessful, and combined with the results of the zeal with which the Spaniards complied with their pontiff's instructions, the Americas continue to be populated with a substantial number of indigenous people, albeit now enhanced with body hair.

Those who believe their bloodlines to be either devoid or less tainted with dominant genes are displeased by the continued presence, and superior reproductive skills, of the holy race, and their own inevitable subsumption into it.

[sujan]

169. yep

Read about their(Israeli) treatment of Bene Israel group.

[_Jumper_]

28. Voting is not the issue

If Muslims assimilate and adopt the mainstream French values of secularism, democracy, and pluralrism only racists, ethnic and religious bigots would care about France's demographics. This is about preserving France was the French currently know it and preventing it from turning into another Pakistan or Indonesia.

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. How do you feel forcing Muslim girls into madrassas will increase

the likelihood that they will adopt these values?

And how do you feel that legislating women's clothing demonstrates that the French have adopted them?

Do you feel the Taliban are good examples of those values in action?

They too believe that how women dress should be mandated by law.

[arewethereyet]

97. I believe that this is rthe real crux of the issue

their liberal immigration is threatening traditional political power structures and something HAS to be done.

I think I prefer how we do it here in America. The Spanish speaking population is growing and asserting itself and polititians have had to make sure that their platforms and agenda's recognize this fact.

"English as a 2nd language" is not just a vague expression, everyone understands that its reality and are growing into recognition. THere are now 'Spanish for Business' courses in my area.

A melting pot is far nicer than a frying pan.

[Paschall]

142. You need to know a little more about immigration to France

Most Muslims in France today are already second-, third-, or fourth-generation French.

And most Muslim immigrants to France come from former French colonies where, depending on the colony's status, they--or their ascendants--may have acquired French nationality by birth.

No small portion of these immigrants choose to come to France, called the "Land of Human Rights," to escape repressive governments or unstable political situations in their homelands.

But when they arrive in France they usually speak the language and have some knowledge of French culture--if only that acquired through colonization.

The situation is only superficially comparable to that in the States.

[shimmergal]

156. Maybe they should take aim at that high birth rate instead.

Short of coercion, the best and most effective way to lower it is to insure that women get good schooling and career opportunities.

If the headscarf ban keeps young Muslim women out of school, it will work just the opposite. In other words, Chirac's ban will be self-defeating.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. So you think the law should apply only to Muslims?

I missed your answer to my question about which religious freedoms for Jews and Christians should be abolished.

[Bombtrack]

15. the law bans crucifixes and yamukahs(sp?) as well

but it's purpous is to assimilate the muslims.

the law does apply to other religions, however religiously fanatic jews and catholics aren't really as much of an international problem as the majority of islam is.

Fantatism is driving it. Sympathy for terror is commonplace and direct involvement is uncomparable to any time in modern history

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. It does not ban crucifixes, actually. Tell me more about your feeling

that the "majority of Islam" is an international problem.

Should the religion be banned? Or its practicioners locked up, for their own protection of course, to help them assimilate.

And would you share with me how you define assimilation, in addition to not wearing headscarves?

What would you say to Jewish and Christian women who wish to wear head scarves?

[pasadenaboy]

58. It most certainly does ban crucifixs that are visible.

You can wear one that is not visisble, but if it can be seen, it is not legal.

[_Jumper_]

30. Majority of Muslims?

Do you really think the majority of Muslims are an international problem? The majority of Muslims are similar to Xian fundies in the USA. Once the world convinces them that they do not have a right to marginalize religious minorities wherever they are the majority they will cease to be a problem.

Muslim fundies are a major problem but they comprise only a small share of the Muslim population.

[PsychoDad]

144. Assimulate?

You mean you favor people being forced to forget their past? Forced to forget their culture, religion, traditions? Forced to adopt "proper" westrern mores and traditions.

Silly Muslims, trying to retain their own religious identity by dressing differntly, growing facial hair, not drinking, gambling or eating pork!
And that praying five times a day! What's up with that? That's not very western! Western religion is acknowledging God a maximum of twice a week, we simply can't have this overdoing it! They must Assimulate! They can attend church on easter and christmass like good westerners.

You think these people would be somehow better if they were forced to wear clothing more to the liking of madison ave. and other westerners? When will we dictate that pork and alcohol are mandatory?

[DuctapeFatwa]

159. Great post! Logic is no match for bigotry and sexism

And it took your post to bring me back to the reality that that is what is being argued here. Not separation of religion and state or protection of secularism. Those arguments have been offered, rebutted, rephrased, lathered, rinsed and repeated over and over again.

And what is left, when all is said and done, and all the trappings and disguises and cleverness is stripped away, is bigotry and sexism.

What this law will do is force Muslim women out of the French public schools, out of the French civil service, into a Western-imposed purdah that will ensure the opposite of what its champions claim to desire.

It will ostracize people who follow a particular faith and/or cultural tradition, and celebrate the idea that women present some kind of insidious threat to society that men do not.

It is a law designed to appeal to the basest fears of the ignorant, the hate-filled, the small-minded, to deepen existing divisions and create new ones.

[BonjourUSA]

163. Before to judge you should read the French posts here !

[_Jumper_]

26. He is right

Via immigration and high birth rates Muslims will become the majority in France at some point this century. This isn't a cosmetic change if they fail to assimilate; this will be a wholesale change for French society. If Muslims fail to assimilate France will become another Pakistan or Indonesia. French people have a right to gurantee that their grandchildren will live in a secular democracy that is pluralistic. Islam in its current form is inimical to these values.

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. What is wrong with Pakistan and Indonesia?

Why do you feel that your perception of what constitutes French culture is superior to your perception of what constitutes Indonesian culture?

[_Jumper_]

38. The same things that I find wrong with Xian U.S. fundies

I cannot fight against those types here and then denounce others for doing the same abroad. "Moderate" Muslim nations are equavilent to conservative U.S. Xian fundies.

How do Islamic countries fare with respect to granting equality to religious minorities?

[DuctapeFatwa]

44. If I disagree with the "fundies" that hijab should not be mandatory

I cannot agree with another flavor of "fundie" that is should be forbidden.

Women are intelligent human beings, and in my opinion, have the capacity to decide for themselves what if anything they will wear on their heads, for any or no reason, without the need for either mullah sor parliaments to decree it for them.

[_Jumper_]

46. This debate is symoblic

The real issue is not hijab but rather French Muslim assimilation.

I agree with you on the issue of hijab--I know a few good, tolerant, American Muslims who wear it. I would not ban it were I president of France. However, I will stand by France's right to try to prevent its Islamicization.

[DuctapeFatwa]

49. Then you must stand by the Taliban's right to require women to

wear burkas in order to try to prevent the westernization of Afghanistan :evilgrin:

[pasadenaboy]

59. How many school age girls are given that freedom

you know as well as I do that at that age, their parents make the decision, not them.

[_Jumper_]

63. Bingo!

n/t

[DuctapeFatwa]

67. And how will moving them from the mainstream into isolated madrassas

encourage their parents to give them the freedom which you yourself would deny them?

[_Jumper_]

69. I have no tolerance for religious schools

Don't we fight against vouchers for religious schools here? Why one standard for Xian fundies and one for Muslim fundies?

[DuctapeFatwa]

87. So you believe that Muslim girls should not go to school at all?

If they will not display their hair to the public, whether for reasons cultural or religious, they will either be "isolated" in schools that are quite likely to REQUIRE hijab, or they will be taken out of school entirely.

How do you feel that this will increase tolerance, and encourage "fundie" families to embrace the diversity of France?

Edit to ask why you believe that tolerance is something that you wish to see in others, but you prefer to shun it?

[Jen72]

179. France......

Gives women abortion rights, full educationing and career oppurtunites, full legal access should her spouse beat her, honour killings are fully illegal (these have been hitting the papers in the UK, young girls disappearing, swallowing bleach etc, because they do not wish to marry.) Poligamy is also illegal.
These are things that can are missing in many parts of Pakistan and some of Indonesia.
The fears of a Muslim majority, is the same as it would be of the religious right fundermental christians. That the imposition of the culture will destroy the country the have built an errode the human rights they have.
Not only that but Frances's main industry is wine, Cognac and Champaigne.

BTW: I have grown up in London, I have many Muslim friends (some where scarves, some do not) and I remember at sixteen, the distress and anxiety felt by every Muslim girl. Not one of them wanted to marry. I expect that they have a culture but I would not want it to
take away our freedom.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Muslims becoming a majority is by no means a certainty

The immigration rates are almost bound to vary over the century; and you cannot assume the Muslim birth rate will stay high. This would also assume that Muslims living in France would keep their faith, and transmit it to their children - again, a big assumption in Europe.

If there's any serious study by a demographer showing what assumptions they make, and what different assumptions might produce, I'd be very interested to see it.

[DemExpat]

96. A large factor of this percieved problem

in The Netherlands is what is called
"family reunification" laws - allowing family members from Turkey, Morocco, etc. to join their family in Europe. Not just wives and children either, siblings, parents, cousins, etc.

Also, quite a large percentage of Muslims here marry a partner from the "old country" - which means more newcomers and lowered expectations of integration for their offspring since the bride or groom does not speak Dutch or know Dutch culture and society.

These laws are now being reconsidered.....

DemEx

[funkyflathead]

5. Expect a backlash

The Muslim world will hate Europe too.

[_Jumper_]

31. It has hated Europe since almost day one

Europe has always stood in the way of the Islamic dream of world domination.

[Orrin_73]

37. Where do you get that nonse from??

Islamic dream of world domination, The vast majority of those muslims living in france come from the former french colonies. They are more accustomed to french language and culture then say eastern europeans. Just look at countries like algeria, tunisia and morocco, french is the second language. If the french never had colonized the countries there would not be a large muslim minority in france.


deanforamerica.com
clark04.com
kucinich.us
sharpton2004.org

Tom DeLay:"I challenge anyone to live on my salary" <$158,000 a year>

[_Jumper_]

39. The Koran

:)

[Orrin_73]

41. As a muslim

I have never read anythinmg like that in the koran.

deanforamerica.com
clark04.com
kucinich.us
sharpton2004.org

Tom DeLay:"I challenge anyone to live on my salary" <$158,000 a year>

[PsychoDad]

145. The Quran states

There shall be no compulsion in religion. Sura 2:255

The Quran also declares that God is against any who oppress or start wars for the sake of gain.

[Rex]

8. And how is this any different than keeping prayer out of public schools?

nt

[Bush loves Jiang]

24. There's a huge difference...

These are STUDENTS voluntary dressing in such a way as to show that they are a member of a specific religious groups, and are in no way compelling young women who are not Muslims to dress in the same manner. Canada's going in the opposite direction on this issue: Rather than supressing religious expression as France is currently doing, Canada allows it provided that it is done by private individuals and groups and that it is not used to supress the civil rights of others.

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. And there are women who wear scarves for non-religious reasons

In some parts of the world, women wearing scarves in public is a cultural thing that existed long before and exists today independently of any of the Abrahamic religions, all of which have some adherents who do wear them for religious reasons, for example, some Christians cite Paul's letter to the Corinthians, in which he expresses approval of what was already in his time an ancient custom.

Throughout the Holy Land today, you will see women who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, all wearing head coverings of some kind, for the same reason that in Chicago you will see women of all those faiths wearing blouses, while in some parts of the world you will women of the same religions wearing nothing on their torsos.

Just as many American women, even if they went to live in the Amazon or in Africa, might feel uncomfortable attending school or work with bare breasts, so some women who were raised in a head covering culture feel uncomfortable exposing their hair to public view.

And in all cases, there are women who choose to wear or not wear scarves for reasons neither religious or cultural, but simply because they feel like wearing one (or not) on a given day, for reasons mysterious and unknown :)

[arewethereyet]

111. not any more I guess

that won't help the French scarf business much.

What about expensive handbags of women who worship money ?

[shimmergal]

157. One not-mysterious reason: to get through a bad hair day.

Unfortunately if you do this anymore, you're viewed as a real weirdo.

[_Jumper_]

33. Canada is a different case

Canada is not faced with the prospect of ever becoming an Islamic country, let alone an Islamic country in this century. It is much easier to allow Islamic fundies to run wild when you don't have to worry about your granddaughter being a second-class citizen because of Islamization.

[Paschall]

109. This law has nothing to do with a Muslim "demographic threat" in France

The only people who take that absurd notion seriously are Jean-Marie Le Pen's neo-fascist National Party.

This law's purpose is to preserve the secularity of the French state. I've commented on it in length on this thread.

[Rex]

198. It's been a long time since I've been in H.S.

If a student wears a shirt with a big cross on the front or has a chain with a cross on it, do U.S. schools make them take it off or go home and change the shirt?

I have to admit, it's been so long since H.S. that I'm not sure what they allow in school today.

[theboss]

149. Giant difference

If a student wants to pray in school, wear a crucifix to school, carry rosary beads, wear a yamulke, carry a Bible, or anything else they can. The school simply cannot sanction these things.

France now has an offical policy of Religious Opression. It's disgusting.

[Yupster]

19. A theoretical question?

leaving this specific behind, is there such a thing as a national culture? and does a nation have a right to defend its culture.

For instance, Switzerland has a reputation as a very diverse nation. What if the German plurality in Switzerland decided that it should become a Nazi one-party state in the 20's,30's and 40's. And what if hundreds of thousands or even millions of Germans moved to Switzerland to form a voting bloc that could enforce such a change legally?

Would Switzerland have a right to defend its traditions and culture against the now majority of its citizens, or is the place Switzerland just a mass of land that should suit whatever the majority of its voters say it should suit?

It's a theoretical question. You can replace Nazis and Swiss for any other group you want.

To me it's not an easy call. In one way, democracy should rule and the ctizens should get what they want, but in the other way, countries do have specific cultures that I would hate to see just disappear. I guess the Hittites, Byzantines, Aztecs and many indiginous tribes throughout the world would wonder where I was when their cultures were being destroyed though.

Any thoughts?

[Aidoneus]

20. comparing the hijab to a Nazi takeover?

Oh.. um, oh.

[_Jumper_]

34. Hijab is just a symbol for Muslim fundism

Islamic fundism is not much more tolerant than Nazism. Look at the Taliban.

[DuctapeFatwa]

36. Yes, look at the Taliban, and tell me why you agree with them

that women are not capable of deciding for themselves how they shall dress.

You are not the only person to be unaware that the custom of women covering their heads predates Islam by several millennia and is practiced by some Jews, Christians, and several other religions to boot.

Also, as I have noted elsewhere, some women decide to wear a scarf for the same reason they decide to wear a blue dress one day and not the next, which is more mysterious and inexplicable than any religion, and about as dangerous to mess with :)

[Paschall]

107. Ductape Fatwa

Before rehashing your tired, old arguments again, it might be nice if you tackled my challenges in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=265390

So far, you haven't demonstrated to me that you HAVE ANY argument against this legislation. You're blowing hot air in several directions at once.

[DuctapeFatwa]

108. I have answered each of your arguments. wanna talk about beards?

The Taliban mirror your assertion that "most women want" to dress the way they feel women should dress.

I believe that each individual woman is capable of deciding for herself what to wear.

[Paschall]

112. If anyone is mirroring the Taliban here it is you

You are again putting words in my mouth: my "assertion"? WHAT?

You have not responded to my challenges on that thread.

And you are simply rehashing old arguments here.

May I ask why this particular French legislation is so important to you? It would seem there are plenty of cases out there of women actually being persecuted on religious pretexts that might merit your attention. Oh, I don't know... like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait for starters.

[arewethereyet]

113. somehow it seems a little more shocking coming from France

Perhaps its the notion that France is a little more enlightened.

If they're a little scared of some scarves and the like, I guess not.

[Paschall]

118. Or you could simply be wrong...

...in assuming this has anything to do with fear.

Recommended reading: http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/secular.asp

[DuctapeFatwa]

116. I understand that you prefer not to discuss beards in this context

And I see that as a positive sign.

I did respond to every one of your points in the other thread, both there, and there is not one that I have addressed here, most of them more than once.

The legislation is important to me for several reasons.

First, I am in favor of freedom. Freedom to choose one's religion, and one's expression of it.

And I am strongly opposed to laws that discriminate against women, as this one does.

It does not matter to me who denies women freedom, or on what justification.

Elsewhere, I have spelled out very clearly the problems with this legislation.

With all respect, it is you who have not answered my arguments.

Specifically, how will this legislation determine whether the scarf is a religious symbol or not?

If the purpose of the law is indeed related to the secular nature of the state, should there not be a mechanism for defining when something is or is not a religious symbol?

If the purpose of the legislation is to encourage "assimilation," please explain why this assimilation is necessary for women but not men.

[Paschall]

117. No you did not respond

Perhaps you failed to see these posts. I reply to some of your concerns here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=265390#270041

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=265390#269834

Those are posts 102 and 105 on that thread. The links take you directly to those posts.

[DuctapeFatwa]

120. Can you give me post numbers while you read post 119 here?

The links take me to the beginning of that other thread, and it is huge!

on edit do you mean 105 there?

I will be happy to answer you, but my answer will contain the word "beard."

And I do not share your confidence in jurisprudence to wisely conclude that a solid cover scarf worn one way is religious and a printed scarf worn another way is secular. I know you do not like hearing this, but that sounds like nothing but the endless discussions of Talibanistas over whether this or that color or fabric texture is Islamic or not.

I have said several times that I am in favor of freedom of religious expression.

At the same time, I have no problem with separation of church and state, and if France feels that its secularism is so fragile that it is imperiled by people wearing little hais and stars of david etc around their necks or on their arms, while I do not approve, I cannot make as strong an objection on moral grounds as I can to the inclusion of ambiguous objects, such as scarves, or yes, you guessed it, beards.

Which I am regretfully obliged to point out are not included in the legislation, which indicates that either French jurisprudence does not consider itself up to the admittedly heavy burden your confidence places upon it, or for some reason, France feels more compelled to dictate the grooming of Madame than that of Monsieur ;)

[Paschall]

122. 102 and 105

I've edited my post above accordingly.

[DuctapeFatwa]

125. And I have edited mine, and I await your explaining to me

why scarves threaten the secularity of France whereas beards do not.

[Paschall]

127. Amazing

Do you have a link to the French text of the bill you're discussing? Because as far as I know none has been written.

Regarding beards, it's obvious that the secular intent of the bill being proposed would exclude them, too, whether they are included explicitly or not.

[DuctapeFatwa]

131. All that has been released mentions everything but beards

Somehow, I think that French barbers hoping for a windfall will be disappointed.

Come on, you know as well as I do that if there were any suggestion of sending French civil servants off to shave their beards and moustaches, you would have a lot more than Muslim schoolgirls marching in the streets!

[PsychoDad]

146. No beards either?

No scarves, no beards, Yamulkas, crucifixes, stars of david, om symbols, nor would I imagine eyes of Horus.

Might just be easier to legislate a monotone grey jumpsuit, cleanshaven heads and grey caps as a national dress code.
And what about those pesky religious names like Muhammid, Abdulah, Jesus, Mary, Joan, Peter, etc. Those certanly don't promote secular equality.

So... In retrospect - Might just be easier to legislate a monotone grey jumpsuit, cleanshaven heads and grey caps, and nice neutral secular numbers instead of possibly inflamitory religous names.

[DuctapeFatwa]

158. Beards will be permitted, as far as I can tell

Nothing regarding the proposed legislation mentions them.

[DuctapeFatwa]

22. If a culture can be threatened by women wearing scarves or not

I would suggest that the problem is not the scarves.

Your argument is the identical one used by many in the East who are in favor or requiring all women, Muslim or not, to wear scarves, or even burkas.

I think that some may not be thinking things through. If the desire is to empower women to choose for themselves, legislating their clothing may not be the most effective method of sending that message.

As for those who support the state telling women what they can or cannot wear in the name of "assimilation," it is difficult to see how forcing women who wish to wear scarves on their heads to attend religious schools as opposed to the public ones will further that goal.

[Astarho]

53. France has cultural minorites

Almost every large nation has a certain level of cultural diversity. And all cultures are constantly evolving. Using your example, the Aztecs have survived. They still speak Nahuatl, and in many ways Mexican (an Aztec name) culture is Aztec, although with some Spanish influences

France has the Bretons, the Basques and the Occitans, as well as the Alsatian Germans. Ever since the Revoltion, France has tried to assimilate all their cultural minorities. It was only recently, I think the last 20 years that Bretons are allowed legally to take Breton names.

The attitude toward Muslims would seem to be the latest example of this feeling. Muslims will change the culture of France, not destroy it.

[Yupster]

56. Thanks for your response

I was trying to get away from the current specific example, and get to the more generic question of whether a culture has a right to defend itself against change. I appreciate your answer. All the other responses went right back to the specific French example, which I guess proves I wrote an unclear first question.

[_Jumper_]

65. IF they assimilate

Name one place where Muslims have become a majority and did not assimilate where they did not virtually completely impose their culture on that area. Why do you think the Middle East, parts of South Asia, and parts of Africa are Muslim?

[DuctapeFatwa]

71. Is it Islam they are "imposing," or something else?

Why do you think that Latin America and parts of Europe and Asia are "Christian?"

[_Jumper_]

74. I don't defend any form of imperialism

However, there are many Xian nations that allow religious equality. How many Muslim nations do?

[DuctapeFatwa]

91. You seem to be making quite an effort to defend your own form of it

And I might add, against all odds and logic :)

[Astarho]

106. They did not "virtually completely impose"

their own culture on the people anywhere. Contact with Islam caused those cultures to evolve, but did not destroy them. Also there is not one single "Muslim" culture anymore then there is a single "Christian" one. Mali was quite different from the Mughal empire or the Indonesian pricipalities.

Name one place where Muslims have become a majority and did not assimilate where they did not virtually completely impose their culture on that area.

African Muslims rejected the veil.
For example, Ibn Bnattuta was appalled by the way that women do not cover themselves in proper Islamic fashion (i.e. they did not where the veil or even cover much of their bodies with clothing).
http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~aweiss/mali.htm

The ancient Egyptian festival of Opet is re-enected in Egypt (Nov 4).
http://www.egyptvoyager.com/tourinfo_entertaiment_publicholidays.htm

Elements of Berber paganism still remain. (Anzar legend)
http://www.kabyle.com/article.php3?id_article=3700

The Shahnamah Epic of Iran details their pre-Islamic history

Berbers, Iranians, Albanians, Indonesians, Turks, and Africans still speak their native languages.

[Paschall]

110. Interesting question

But I really don't think it's apropos.

With this ban on religious symbols in France, we are not defending our national "culture," but the secularism of our institutions. Big difference.

I recommend you read this essay on the French Embassy's website on "The Secular Principle"

http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/secular.asp

[Muddleoftheroad]

114. I recommend you try reading the 1st Amendment

Our way is a bit better.

[Paschall]

121. Better? Why?

Has the First Amendment resolved the problem of religion's place in American public institutions and politics? From the case law on the question, the issue still seems rather contentious these 200 years hence.

And how has the encroachment of religion in the public and political sphere--everything from television evangelists and their media kingdoms, to elected officials' invocation of religion--benefitted the American people and American democracy?

Again I suggest you read http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/secular.asp

[wuushew]

123. Our Constitution has lasted over 200 years

France has rewritten theirs five times and produced Napolean. In addition their revolution occured after ours. If our constitution was so inherrently flawed then surely they should have been able to avoid our grevious mistakes. I am not impressed by France's multiple attempts at democracy.

[Paschall]

126. You might not be impressed by...

..."France's multiple attempts at democracy" but then, on the other hand, it's doubtful that there ever would have been an American revolution without the French Enlightenment. Or French support of the revolutionaries during the American war.

However, all that's beside the point. None of your arguments respond to my original question. How has the encroachment of religion into American public affairs benefitted American democracy?

[wuushew]

128. From the onset the document has needed very little revision

Is that not the sign that the Constitution and its various amendments are flexible yet well written enough to provide a workable solution to the nation's problems?

If it was inherrently flawed then perhaps we too would be on our second or third constitutional convention. Things that work do not need to be scrapped.

[Paschall]

132. And how does that respond to my question...

...about religious encroachment into American public affairs?

Though, of course, it might be noted that France's constitution was re-written because the country's political authority had been overthrown by war or further revolution. I don't believe you'll find many historians who will blame the "weaknesses" of the French constitution for those events.

And I could frame this another way and point out that the French have fought at least two revolutions, or three if you count the Commune, and thrown off Nazi occupation to perfect their democracy... which might demonstrate the (1) nation's attachment to democratic principles, (2) the modernity of the current French constitution. As I recall, Americans only fought one revolution.

Regardless, that's all beside the point. Again.

[indy77]

134. Religious incroachment into Am. public affairs? What?

If anything, it's been the opposite. Religion has been removed from public affairs over the last 50 - 100 years.

BTW, France's secularism combined with their inherent nationalistic attitude has made them an unstable nation in Europe since the 1500's.

[Paschall]

138. Oh...

Well, I guess I've misheard almost every speech by an American politician for the last four decades. None of them ever said "God bless America?"

No American school pupil has ever sworn allegiance "under God?" Or paid for his school lunch with currency bearing the motto "In God We Trust?" American educational authorities do not allow religious "clubs" and churches to organize Bible studies classes and other events in public school facilities?

In the past decade, no American science teacher has been forced to teach "Creationism" alongside evolution?

No American witness or jury member has ever sworn an oath "before God" or on the Bible?

No American judge has ever posted the Ten Commandments or the Law of Talion in his chambers or courtroom?

No American city council, state assembly, or congress has ever opened its sessions with prayer?

No American elected representative has ever brandished a Bible or other holy book within a representative assembly or invoked God or the Creator in political oratory?

No American televangelist has ever run for political office or publically supported a political candidate or called for donations to sway public policy or urged his followers to contact their elected representatives to voice their opinions on legislation?

Thanks for clearing that up.

If I may, I'd like to clear something up for you: France has not been an "unstable nation" since the 1400s. It was actually in the mid-15th century, at the end of the Hundred Years' War, that France was unified as a nation. It has preserved almost the same borders and its capital in Paris for these past 600 years.

[Jen72]

184. Don't forget that France is an old nation.

It has a history of more than Two Thousand years and once had a Monarchy. The changing of their constitution, has built a country
that has no death penalty, no one threatening Women's rights, liberial gun laws but nowhere near the number of gun deaths as the US.
And many of them manage to do have a two hour lunch in the working day. I love France.

[_Jumper_]

42. French and other Western Muslims

If the fundies are isolated these Muslims will create a new, tolerant brand of Islam. Muslims in these nations should be welcomed, not feared, but it is imperative that the fundies be isolated.

[Orrin_73]

45. agreed

deanforamerica.com
clark04.com
kucinich.us
sharpton2004.org

Tom DeLay:"I challenge anyone to live on my salary" <$158,000 a year>

[DuctapeFatwa]

50. How do you feel that isolating people will increase tolerance

on their part or yours?

[_Jumper_]

66. All fundies should be isolated

I would bet that 99% of DU'ers would love to have U.S. Xian fundies isolated.

[DuctapeFatwa]

72. Should they be locked into cages?

Please tell me more about how this view will increase tolerance.

[_Jumper_]

77. No but they should be politically marginalized

If that had been done earlier in certain countries we wouldn't be having some of the problems we are having right now.

[DuctapeFatwa]

88. I am still hoping you will explain to me how that will increase tolerance

and make these "fundies" eager to embrace the values of a society that believes they should be marginalized because they wish to wear a piece of cloth on their heads.

[arcos]

47. Chirac has ALWAYS been a right winger... n/t

[BonjourUSA]

54. The large majority of French wants a law against all the religious symbols

but only in the public schools and for thecivil servants.

Between 72 and 80% of the French Muslim girls want to ban these symbols and among them 45% want a law for that.

We are secular and the religion has nothing to do neither at school nor at work. Excepted the fundamentalist Muslims (and perhaps a very few catho clerics), all the French religious representatives says the secular principle is our common property

[arewethereyet]

62. It was my understanding that a more unilateral ban was to be used

to get this specific issue addressed, to make it more acceptable to the average Francios.

I can't really see why wearing a scarf that does not conceal the face would be an issue. Would Jews be required to remove (forgive the spelling) yamakers ?

The only gain would appear to be to make France a not so attractive place to relocate to from the middle east. Since it is a polititian bringing it up, this HAS to be about votes.

France has made it celar that they intend to bully the EU and make their wishes (and those of Germany) more significant than the others. This is nothing more than France for the French to me.

If he is willing to do this it brings into question the motivation of his actions regarding Iraq.

[BonjourUSA]

80. Read again my post above

In France only 4% of the population practices a religion. (a little bit more than 8% for the French youth of Muslim origin). This law should be a recall of the French secular principle for a very little part of the French population, but it's necessary.

[arewethereyet]

84. OK its a smallish number but why these actions ?

why the need to legislate this ? What is the harm ? What is the intent ? I'm obviously missing something simple and obvious but I'm missing it none the less.

[BonjourUSA]

89. Because we live very well without "religious way of life"

All the French live well like that, French with Muslim religion included ans we want to live like that for long, long, long time yet

[arewethereyet]

102. thanks for your response

I don't know how to respond to it but I appreciate your candor.

[DuctapeFatwa]

82. Jews will not be permitted yarmulkes or scarves, Christians may wear

crucifixes, provided they are not large, and will not be allowed to wear scarves.

It is not clear to me whether stars of david, hais, crescents, etc will be forbidden or not, which I assume is to facilitate selective interpretation of the law.

[BonjourUSA]

85. The law certainly will ban all visible symbols

[DuctapeFatwa]

92. And how does the law propose to decide when a scarf is a religious symbol

a cultural norm, a fashion statement, or a public confession of a hastily-planned night of highlighting gone terribly wrong?

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. So tyranny of the majority is OK?

Who cares what rights the minorities might wish to enjoy.

[Paschall]

140. French law does not recognize "minorities"

We are all simply citizens. And the French Constitution states that the country is a secular republic. (French law does, however, protect you from discriminatory crimes motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.)

No religious authorities have the right to dictate what can or cannot happen in state-funded establishments in France. Nor does your membership in a religious or other minority give you any special dispensation regarding the laws of the republic.

Secularism. It's not that hard to understand if you put your mind to it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

143. Yes, only the government can dictate to you

Who cares what individuals want?

Liberte, egalite, authorite.

[Paschall]

168. I suppose that non sequitur...

...was merely a pretext for trotting out your latest take-off on Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.

Cute. But no cigar.

[Muddleoftheroad]

201. Actually, I'm sure cigars are forbidden too

But only if they are religious ones.

As for mocking the French, it's easy to do when they do dumb authoritarian stuff like this.

[Paschall]

206. Separation of church and state...

...is "dumb authoritarian stuff?"

Whatever. :eyes:

[mainer]

55. Didn't Turkey ban them for government workers?

And I don't think you can call Turkey anti-Muslim.

[_Jumper_]

68. Muslim fundies consider Turkey anti-Muslim

:eyes;

[DuctapeFatwa]

79. Were you attacked by a head scarf at some point?

You seem to be according a detail of clothing worn by women a great deal of importance. Please do not believe that I am singling you out. I saw someone else call head scarves a terrorist threat, and you seem to be giving them the same status and gravity as a constitutionally hardwired integration or separation of religion and secular government.

Are you as frightened of turbans? argyle socks? If we were talking about polyester leisure suits, I could understand, but a head scarf?

[_Jumper_]

94. I don't care about head scarves

I have no problem with them and have stated that. I know several Muslim women that wear that and it does not bother me. In this case they are merely symoblic of Muslim failure--or perceived failure--to integrate into mainstream French society thus far.


I just happen to be very anti-religion and since Islam is the religion that I am most familar with, as well as the religion that has caused me the most trouble, it is the target of most of my hostility toward religion.

[pasadenaboy]

57. No one in france is allowed

to wear religious symbols or clothing in public schools. The French revolution was fought to destroy religous influence in the public arena. They got rid of the catholics, and I bet they be damned before the let the muslims take over where the catholics left off. I say good for them.

[DuctapeFatwa]

81. Christians will be permitted to wear crucifixes that are "not large"

As I and others have pointed out, a head scarf may be a religious symbol, or it may not be.

If the intention of the law is to ban the wearing of scarves for religious reasons only, as it is written it does not do that.

There is no distinction made between the wearing of a scarf because you believe the Bible says you should, or because you have this really cool scarf that you think looks good with the dress you have on today, or matches your eyes, or whatever.

[Paschall]

124. You're being disingenuous

The "law" as it's currently being discussed includes the adjective "ostentatious" to describe banned religious symbols.

You're also overlooking the fact that it would allow Muslims to carry with them small copies of the Qur'an and wear small "hands of Fatmah" medallions.

But we don't know for sure what the law will contain because the bill has not been submitted to the Parliament yet.

[DuctapeFatwa]

129. LOL yes, I have been informed of the ostentatious clause

I think it is safe to assume that it will include language that specifies that beards are by definition not ostentatious :)

[Paschall]

139. You may assume whatever you wish

But since you're not French, you'll pardon me if I assume you're not an expert on French jurisprudence. And therefore consider your assumptions insignificant.

[DuctapeFatwa]

155. LOL I am sorry if I hit a nerve

I do not think there is any expert on any jurisprudence who can make a credible argument for utilizing the courts to decide when a scarf is a religious symbol on a case by case basis, nor do I think there is any expert who can make a credible argument that a beard is less ambiguous a religious symbol than a scarf, and that a law banning one and permitting the other is anything other than a law that deliberately discriminates against women.

Not to nitpick, but because there are so many things of greater interest happening in the world, I do not discuss my personal history or details on internet message boards, so you do not know whether I am French or not!

[Paschall]

165. Si, si

Je le sais. Nous avons des moyens pour le savoir. :evilgrin:

Par ailleurs, je te dirige vers le site du Conseil d'Etat, pour que tu puisses étudier la jurisprudence toi-même.

http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/jurispa/index_ju_aj9507.shtml

[DuctapeFatwa]

170. LOL I No, you do not. And I have that site in my bookmarks. thank you

As a matter of principle, I do not admit to speaking any languages whatsoever.

However, I can tell you that if you will go to that site yourself, you will find that "secular" refers to religion and not culture.

Do you think that France will pick up the tab for surgical tattoo removal, or decide that like beards, they are not ostentatious?

Or just not ostentatious on men?

[Paschall]

186. Given your propensity for avoiding the central question...

...over secularism--whether you support the separation of church and state--as well as the numerous challenges I've formulated to your arguments, I think you've probably made a wise decision in choosing to deny you speak "any languages whatsoever."

[DuctapeFatwa]

188. I have covered every aspect of this, including religion is not culture

One that I notice that you prefer to leave out, like beards on men :)

Secularism is about religion, not culture.

If the state is to ban any cultural symbol, this legislation will comprise a pretty hefty package, and France will be obliged to enact conscription of lawyers clerks, if not set up a whole separate court system to deal with the minutiae of the multitude of cases brought before it, and of course raise taxes, which may be offset by the emptiness of the public schools.

[Paschall]

199. You have covered merde

On the earlier thread regarding the presidential commission's report on this subject, you spent your time flinging the "Taliban" insult at the French. Here you seem to be swept up in amorous glee about your new pet argument, la barbe.

Beards or no, you have still failed to meet my challenges, those formulated here and here.

Et maintenant vous prétendez prédire l'avenir du système judiciaire français? Oui, oui, mon cherie, continuez comme ça...

If you were informed enough and capable of making the slightest prediction regarding the impact of this law on the French legal system or French culture, it would have been public knowledge by now. And we would have been long-since dazzled by your worldliness. We're not. C'est le moins que l'on puisse dire!

[DuctapeFatwa]

207. If you will compare the arguments used by the Taliban

regarding their view on why women's dress should be regulated according to their preferences, you will notice that one of their main arguments is that this is what women want.

I am sure that in France, there are some women who would like to see head scarves banned, and some that would like to them required.

Whether France chooses to reverse mirror Taliban arguments, or opts to maintain traditional western values of tolerance, gender equality and freedom of choice is for France to decide.

If I express opposition to patriarchal autocracy, bigotry and fear mongering on the part of the Taliban, I cannot in good conscience applaud the same things simply because the same sword, held upside down is weilded by the French.

Although I recognize that you and others may disagree, I do not agree with the premise that it is OK because they are Europeans, or because they are French.

As you will note in Post 159, I also recognize that there are some arguments that cannot be refuted.

[Paschall]

216. See my post 212

If I express opposition to patriarchal autocracy, bigotry and fear mongering on the part of the Taliban, I cannot in good conscience applaud the same things simply because the same sword, held upside down is weilded {sic} by the French.

The problem is that you've totally failed to present any evidence that this ban represents "patriarchal autocracy, bigotry and fear mongering."

Equating secularism with religious tyranny is a classic ploy of religionists of all stripes. In the case of French secularism, the comparison is fundamentally dishonest because France strictly guarantees citizens the right to their faith and the right to practice it. It's no accident that France has the largest Jewish and Muslim populations in Europe. State institutions, however, are off-limits to religion.

I'll repeat my question: For the umpteenth time, do you support separation of church and state?

[Cascadian]

78. Chirac and French could polarize Muslims

Can you imagine if John Ashcroft and the Chimp in Chief dare to do this to the Muslims here?

I think it is short-sighted that Chirac has done this. France has a huge Muslim population and I fear that if they think they are going to be successful in assimilation this way, they are going to find it will have the opposite effect. It won't work. If Chirac thinks he has problems with Muslims now, he may have opened a Pandora's Box.


John

[BonjourUSA]

83. Read my posts : #54 and #80

[DuctapeFatwa]

90. That is exactly the argument that the Taliban give, if you ask them

about mandatory burkas.

Women want it, they will tell you!

And some do. Others don't.

It may surprise you to know that few women in any culture are opposed to being granted the respect to make their own decisions regarding their clothing.

[BonjourUSA]

95. Yes, in France we're all Tabilans

:-)

And 85% of the French girls with a Muslim religion have been forced to say that they wants to ban ALL religious symbols in the public schools. And all religious representatives of all the religions have been forced to say that the secular principle is their common property.

[Karenina]

99. Soit sage, Bonjour!

Your sarcasm will streak past so many so fast comprehension will be impossible. Americans have NO REAL POINT OF REFERENCE for these issues. I sit her amused at the declarations in so many posts, obviously written by people who have never LIVED ABROAD for any extended period of time. I applaud Chirac on this. GET RELIGION OUT OF THE PUBLIC ARENA. You believe in G_d? Well GOOD ON YOU. Many do. It's fine. However, leave religion out of our public discourse. I think DTF raises many very subtle yet important issues- the bottom line for me is MEN GET THEIR ROCKS OFF FIGHTING OVER WOMEN'S BODIES. When I stand waaaaay back and put on my Fernbrille, I crack up laughing before I break down in tears.

Frohes Fest and all GOOD things to you and yours, cherie! :loveya:

[DuctapeFatwa]

105. Although I could care less about religious symbols I agree with you

100% that men legislating women's bodies is inappropriate, whether they are legislating how women choose to use (or not) their uteruses or what they choose to put on their heads.

The problem with this law is not the religious symbols aspect.

While I am personally in favor of choice regarding wearing scapulars, hais, etc, if France feels that its secularism is so feeble that it needs to legislate little stars and crescents out of government offices, that is quite a different question from legislating what WOMEN may wear on their heads.

Like a beard, a scarf may be a religious symbol, or it may not be.

Only each individual wearer knows why she wears a scarf.

The law cannot see into the heart of each woman and determine whether her scarf is a religious symbol, therefore if the reasoning for the law is to prohibit religious symbols, it fails.

All it does is add one more law passed to deny women the right to make a personal decision.

[sistersofmercy]

133. Oh DF

I'm going to have to disagree with your premise here. A beard is made up of facial hair which grows from the body and a scarf is something deliberately placed upon a head. There is no similarity between the two. Now you can argue the religious aspect all you want but one is a biological part of the body, the other is not.
The banning of religious symbols in a secular school setting is IMO a good thing.

[indy77]

135. But it can't be enforced

All it takes is another "fad" that has some kind of religious premise to it and boom! you got another religious article of clothing to ban. I'm sure the next version of the scarf will be a special way to wear a baseball cap.

[DuctapeFatwa]

152. Who decides when an ambiguous object is a religious symbol?

Like a scarf, a beard can be a symbol of someone's faith, or not.

While the same argument could be made about little gold crosses and stars, those items do not have the categorical ambiguity of a scarf or a beard.

Banning either takes us out of the question of religious symbols, banning scarves but not beards does not bring us back, but takes us over to the ever-popular pasttime of regulating women's clothing.

[sistersofmercy]

160. OK

Isn't this debate about secular schools? If the rules are no religious symbols, clothing etc why should there be an exception for Muslim young ladies in a classroom setting? To my knowledge, hats or other head coverings are not allowed in the classroom. If young Muslims want to where religious clothing items I think they need to go to a private religious school. Again, I'll reiterate, a beard is a biological component of the body, not even remotely similar to a scarf deliberately placed on the head. I have no doubt that some men choose to grow a beard for cultural and religious purposes but others do not. Beard=natural biological part of a man's body Scarf=inanimate object
The beard argument would be better placed against say if the young women of other religions who choose to not cut their hair for religious purposes were told they could no longer grow their hair as long as they wish. Pentecostal women do not cut their hair.

[DuctapeFatwa]

162. A scarf, like a beard, may or may not be a religious symbol

Laws cannot see into hearts.

And forcing Muslim women into madrassas is not likely to achieve what the bill's advocates claim to want, namely increased religious tolerance and increased assimilation of very conservative Muslims into the mainstream.

The message that this law sends is not one of secularism, nor unity, nor equal treatment of women, On the contrary, on the most basic level it repudiates them all.

[sistersofmercy]

164. Yes I completely understand your point

about religious ambiguity inherent to the two items, however they are still very different. The hijab has no place in a secular school setting neither does the yarmulke or any other inanimate religious items. Head coverings of any kind have no place in the classroom imo.
If you open the debate of religious expression it sets the system up for a slew of fundie lawsuits ranging to everything from prayer to curriculum and all the in between. The limits need to be set if we are to assimilate and better understand one another. But then again I believe a mandatory world religions course would be a good idea in order to dispel misinformation about all major religions to the followers of different religions.

[sistersofmercy]

167. In addition...

I'd like to share a true story. Several years ago, here in St Louis, there was an incident which took place and perhaps in some respect skews my perspective on this issue.
A Palestinian family immigrated to the US and settled here. The eldest daughter in the family was quite young when the family moved here. She attended public school and sought to assimilate with her peers. The family had other ideas and her father had wanted her to wear the hijab when not in a school setting, the daughter refused. In fact, following the example of her peers, she became very defiant towards her mother and father, breaking curfew, seeing boys and doing what is generally considered normal teenage rebellion.
One night when she did not make her curfew, her mother and father waited up for her to come home. Upon her arrival, her father hacked her to death for the perceived dishonor to the family. What makes this story truly tragic is, the FBI had been doing surveillance of the father who was suspected of terrorist activities. They sat outside and listened to the murder of this young lady and did nothing because they wanted to protect their operations.

[DuctapeFatwa]

172. Do you think that forcing her into a madrassa would have prevented that?

I bet her parents do.

My opinion is different. I believe that by having her in a public school, and engaging her parents, encouraging them to take part in parent-teacher and other community activities, listening to their concerns and offering extra-curricular activities that the daughter and her friends enjoy and the parents do not disapprove of, instead of dividing the family and ending up in tragedy, there would have been a better chance of everybody at least understanding each others' point of view enough to prevent one.

[sistersofmercy]

174. I really don't know what could have prevented this tragedy

When cultures collide, who's to say. I hope I never again have to read such a tragedy.

To this day I believe the FBI should have intervened and saved this girl's life, they were right outside taping the whole incident. Still makes me incredibly angry when I think about it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

175. I agree. I imagine that they did not because they were there to get

a criminal to prosecute, not to prevent a crime or save a life.

But I can assure you that any time you have cultures colliding the way to soften the impact is NOT to polarize and ostracize and isolate one culture completely.

If I were a hardline western cultural hegemonist, I would oppose this law just as strongly as I do now, if not more.

I would want those girls, hijab and all, in that secular classroom learning how great western culture is, and I would want those parents in all the parent-teacher meetings and baking cookies to raise money for the new computer lab and the whole 9 yards.

Once you shuttle them all out of site in religious schools, you have removed an opportunity to have the next generation as a captive audience for 6 hours a day, and you have removed the necessity for those girls to have ANY exposure to western girls and western values, including secularism!

[sistersofmercy]

178. This is an excellent post

I agree with many layers of it. I just worry that it would open the door for Christian fundies to dispute curriculum, they've filed suits before over the theory of evolution and other subject matters that I can't recall at the moment. Peace.

[sistersofmercy]

180. Wanted to add

The FBI as far as I know never had substantial evidence that the father was indeed involved in terrorist activities. Sure it's debatable whether they would have eventually found some if their surveillence had continued but I believe they failed to intervene in a crime which took place right in front of them and in part, have a measure of responsibility in this girl's death.

[DuctapeFatwa]

183. To my knowledge, this has nothing to do with curriculum

and I share your horror of Science According to Falwell.

I am not in favor of teaching kids religious doctrine and calling it science.

This too, could be dealt with in a much better way, just teach them that religion X believes this, religion Y believes that, but current scientific theory says Z, and when you take tests to get into college, or apply for a science job, your knowlege and understanding of Z is what will count.

If you choose a career in religious studies, and want to go anywhere with it, collect 'em all!

[Paschall]

203. If you're speaking about France, you're overlooking...

...or choosing to ignore what I've already told you about religious conflicts over curriculum here. Which is odd because you responded to this post.

The comparison with the Taliban is rather offensive

[DuctapeFatwa]

208. The law to single out women for special punishment if they wear scarves

is not about curriculum.

The comparison with the Taliban is based on nearly identical conversations in mirror image that I have both read and participated in for quite some time.

I am encouraged that you are not pleased with what you see in the mirror.

The longest journeys begin with small steps.

[Paschall]

212. Neither is the law that singles out men wearing yarmulkes

But that's beside the point.

I am neither displeased nor pleased with what I see, because I see no mirror. That is your own--apparently bewitching--metaphor.

You fail to note that the Taliban who says women want to wear the burqa is projecting a wish. A wish he is hoping to fulfill.

When I say French Muslim women and girls support this ban on hijab, I'm basing my statement on multiple polls, public statements from individual women and women's associations--including recorded testimony in hearings before a presidential commission, and private conversations with Muslim women I know.

However, the images you evoke, of courtrooms clogged and judges overrun with massive "women's garment repression" caseloads, and armies of French policemen beating scarved women in the streets of Paris, are the sort of rhetorical terrorism the Taliban uses.

I remark that, after days of discussing this issue, you've not yet said frankly whether you support separation of church and state.

[DuctapeFatwa]

104. All religious symbols except beards, of course

Although many Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and for all I know some Christians wear facial hair for religious reasons, many men wear them for other reasons, so it would be quite out of the question to pass a law banning beards on men. ne cest pa?

[PsychoDad]

147. Stop picking on beards!

:silly:

But I do get your point.
I choose to wear one due to Hadith. Thus it is a outward expression of my faith, just as hijab is. Just that in the west there is no knee-jerk reaction to beards as there is to the hijab because it is not as easly recognized as a symbol of Islam.

[sistersofmercy]

161. Actually I believe

the knee-jerk reaction has everything to do with the western culture's exposure to the habit worn by nuns. My purpose here is not nun bashing at all but it is a sign of religious extremism and we have gotten used to such a headcovering being accepted as such. I have no problem with women wearing head scarves, I see them quite frequently here in the malls and elsewhere. I do have a problem with the hijab in a secular school setting.

[DuctapeFatwa]

166. The problem: religion is not culture.

It is one thing to say that religious symbols may not be worn in a secular school, It is not something that I agree with, but for the sake of argument let's say we have that law.

Now will you extend that prohibition to symbols of culture?

If so, you would be banning not just scarves, but saris and salwar-kameezes, even blouses!

Do women cover their breasts for religious reasons, or for cultural ones?

You say that beards are different because they are part of the body. So is the hair of a Sikh. The hair is covered with a turban.

Should Sikh boys be obliged to display their topkots in the public schools?

Are tribal tattoos part of the body?

I am not trying to give you a hard time, just trying to illustrate that emotions and prejudices cannot always be reconciled with the law at all, and ham-handed attempts to do so, such as this one, are ineffective and unenforceable at best and counter-productive at worst.

I have no problem with a secular state. In fact, I think that the more religious diversity a country has, the better idea a secular state is.

I just happen to think that nothing says "secular" like a wide variety of clothing and symbols, all sitting in the secular classroom, accepting each others differences, and each others equal protection under the secular law, all teaching each other - and us - what "secular" really means :)

[sistersofmercy]

171. In an ideal world

that would be a wonderful possibility. I truly wish we could all live in peace with one another and respect different beliefs. Perhaps, someday we'll get there.O8)

[DuctapeFatwa]

173. I hope you are right. But I do not think that we will get there by

twisty laws that, whether they are or not, appear to be motivated by very different concerns than they say they are (see post 159)

From a very cold and objective standpoint, the gist is this:

If France wishes to do this, it will first need to amend its secularism provision to include culture.

Otherwise, it's a non-starter, a court-clogger, and a black hole for the money of millions of French taxpayers, of all creeds and faiths to whom it is a matter of supreme indifference what Mlle X wears on her head, if anything, but who may not have the same indifference about their law enforcement and judicial resources spending the public treasure on debates over why or why not a black scarf is ostentatious but a red one with bright yellow flowers is not.

[sistersofmercy]

176. I still...

do not agree with your argument. Seems to me it's a no win situation but it has been nice debating and I need to run for now, I have a laundry list of things to get done. Chat at you later. :pals:

[BonjourUSA]

182. Stop to write bullshits, read our posts (Paschall & me) and....

try to understand

[DuctapeFatwa]

191. I have answered all logical arguments, and in post 159

I believe I have demonstrated that I understand very well what can and cannot be addressed by logical argument.

[Paschall]

200. And you could be wrong

You may have demonstrated nothing of the kind. Frankly, that's precisely how it looks to me.

[DuctapeFatwa]

209. If bigotry could be defeated with logic, the Taliban would not have lasted

a day, and no one in France or anywhere else would be championing wacko laws saying what women can or cannot wear.

[Paschall]

211. So you're saying I'm a bigot?

[DemExpat]

185. I abolutely agree with you here on this idealized version of a secular

society....
I just happen to think that nothing says "secular" like a wide variety of clothing and symbols, all sitting in the secular classroom, accepting each others differences, and each others equal protection under the secular law, all teaching each other - and us - what "secular" really means :)

The problem here in Europe (I speak for The Netherlands) is that many Muslim immigrants stem from very conservative areas of Turkey/Morocco, etc., and bring this conservatism with them.

Many Muslims here have great distate for the freedoms they see here - nudity, unmodest clothing, legal prostitution, alcoholic beverages, tolerated drugs, the freedoms of young people to come and go as they please, to do what they want, to chose their own friends/lovers....

Many of them want to live here, but do NOT want to assimilate and be part of the Western Culture, and I am convinced that certain factions would want to change the rules/laws/ and rights here if given the chance. NOT much different than the Fundies in the States....

Watching civil rights being cut back now in the States is no fun, is it? And it is all being 'legally' enacted by the "elected" government.
Europe has fought for secular humanism - Holland is incredibly non-religious, progressive, compassionate to a fault - a society without religious intervention/meddling/in the laws of the land, and I want to KEEP IT THIS WAY for my children and theirs.... I want this freedom from religious oppression.

The only percieved threat to this freedom here in Europe at this time is from Islam, other religious fundamentalism is in tiny pockets, so that is why Europeans are getting all hot and bothered by the growing Islamic population and the growing outspokenness of this community.
10 years ago you hardly saw headscarves here.....now it has really changed the image of the cities as you travel around. The headscarves represent unequal relations between the sexes to most Europeans, and thus a threat to egalitarianism.

And it is not change itself that is feared, it is a change that many experience as threatening to FREEDOMS hard-fought for here that is feared.

DemEx

[BonjourUSA]

187. I have nothing to add

And a secular society deserves to struggle for it in order to avoid drowning into the sweltering and divisive religious speeches

[DuctapeFatwa]

189. If what is desired is that conservative populations assimilate

Forcing their daughters out of the public schools into the purdah of madrassas and barring their mothers from civil service jobs is counter-productive to say the least.

The law institutionalizes stereotypes, such as the notion that westerners are evil beings who seek to force their daughters to become bare-haired harlots.

Also the idea that Muslims and Orthodox Jews are scary dangerous people, especially the women, and society must be protected from them.

And it is just the kind of law that appeals to men who believe that women are dangerous mysterious things, who must be controlled down to what they wear, or don't wear on their heads, in order to protect society from their inherent evil.

Further marginalizing a segment of society is hardly the best way to go about integrating it, and after reading the horrible story told by sistersofmercy, I will have to add an additional objection to this law, namely that it has a very good potential for increasing the number of honor killings.

The public schools are one of the most powerful tools for helping people assimilate. Kids get to know other kids, they learn about each other's culture, and if the school is smart, the parents are brought into the loop, too, and made to feel part of the community, regardless of how they dress, or if they speak with an accent, or drink tea or coffee.

That is how you get people to transition naturally into the mainstream, if that is truly what is desired.

I am afraid this law makes it extremely difficult to believe that is the intent.

[DemExpat]

190. 10 years ago headscarves were not worn as much....why?

Because it is used more as a (political) statement now, perhaps, to separate from the (evils) of the Western Culture....
Since private schools are not "encouraged" here (getting subsidies from the government), Chirac and other European governments who are trying to find a solution to this problem may think that this law will turn back the tide of religious/cultural statement with this dress, and that it will encourage/nudge Muslims to abandon the scarf.

The symbol of inequality between the sexes will not be pervasive, along with other religion's symbols, and hopefully the integration of these people will be stimulated.

Perhaps it will lessen the honor killings - since the girls will not be allowed to wear the scarf anyway, family will have less of a gauge to control whether their daughters/sister/nieces are devout Muslims...

Hopefully it will loosen their grip on these unfortunate girls.
Governments are attempting to stimulate the emancipation of the muslim female.....until this takes place, problems are only going to get worse.
IMHO
But I do agree that it is a risky move, but risky either way.....

DemEx

[DuctapeFatwa]

192. If the law mandated the wearing of burkas, do you think

that western, Christian parents would dress their daughters in them and send them off to public schools, and resign themselves to their fate, bow in submission to the vice and virtue police?

Is that how it would go down in your city?

[DemExpat]

193. No, and that is exactly what, in the extreme case, many Europeans are

trying to avoid down the line by addressing this problem NOW.

:hi:
DemEx

[DuctapeFatwa]

197. Please see post 159

Your concern is addressed there.

[DemExpat]

194. Look, DuctapeFatwa, I understand that this is a slippery slope

problem, and one not to take lightly, but Europeans are happy, satisfied, and proud of their secular societies and institutions.

They do not want blatant signs and symbols of religion in public schools. (Except in Italy, where I read that a Muslim sued the state to get all crucifixes removed from public schoolrooms! I understand both sides of this and the implications as well!)
As I mentioned above, not too long ago most Muslim women did not wear headscarves everywhere, and never to school. Now they are changing the image of the city, and Muslim students are starting to lobby for prayer rooms within the public schools to retreat into for prayers and congregating.
This is a religious segregation that is undesirable here.

I have heard many a Muslim, on television and in friendly discussions, explain how Islamic Law is supreme - above ANY national/International law. They are absolutely adament about this, no discussion possible.

Just like fundy Christians in the US, Muslims here (not all, but many) are Europe's religious fundies, and since society here is much more non-religious than in the US, the majority of Europeans want to preserve this.

Another aspect is that Chirac is trying to ward off extreme right movements in France with this action. If the French feel that the government is not addressing important issues, they will vote in a government who they think WILL.....

There are no easy answers or solutions to this, but one thing is certain, the problem must be addressed.

DemEx

[DuctapeFatwa]

196. I know what Chirac is trying to do

And I understand that against ingrained prejudices, presenting logical arguments is useless.

And if logical arguments are useless, coercion is worse than useless, it is counterproductive.

I also recognize that Chirac is a politician, and that there are those in France, as there are those in the US, who would react positively to a reduction in the number of public school students of an ethnic, religious, or cultural group that they do not like, and that many of those people are in a position to benefit a politician more than immigrants are.

However, I think that the young people of France - all of them - are more important than Chirac's political benefit, and more important than the prejudices of people who think that the west is out to turn their daughters into harlots, as well as those who think that women are a threat, and scarves are a weapon of mass destruction.

As I have said several times, although I personally have no problem with religious symbols in schools, this law is not about religious symbols. If it were, it would not include ambiguous objects.

And if it sought to ban cultural symbols, it WOULD include beards. And tatoos, saris, salwar kameezes, and the list goes on.

If it intended to liberate women and encourage equality, it would not deny them the freedom to choose while granting that freedom to their brothers.

France is by no means the only location where one can find people who consider people who are of a different ethnicity, religion or culture a "problem."

It is an undeniable scientific fact that Caucasians comprise a very small and shrinking percentage of the global population, and that many of the most popular Caucasian genes are regressive.

When this was discussed at a seminar recently, a wise old man, speaking to a young woman concerned that her grandchildren would not inherit her blue eyes, told her "they won't. But you can hope that they will inherit your green thumb."

What he meant was that those who embrace diversity (literally) :)
are those who will survive.

[Paschall]

202. Very touching. But absurd

Mind if I shed a tear in my coffee?

In your third paragraph, you assume this law will reduce "the number of public school students of an ethnic, religious, or cultural group"; that that is the goal being sought; and that these excluded students are "immigrants."

Can you please provide me some statistics, public statements from politicians, or any other factual justification for these leaps of rhetorical faith?

By the way, since you say the goal of this law is not to ban religious OR cultural symbols, what exactly is its purpose--in your own humble opinion, of course?

[DuctapeFatwa]

210. Please see post 159

Your concerns are answered there, as best they can be.

[Paschall]

215. Your post 159? Hahahahaha

That little diatribe? Hahahaha.

Your post 159 so grossly misrepresents the proposed ban on religious symbols that it hardly deserves a comment.

I will say, though, that by implying the ban applies only to one gender and one faith community, your post reminds me of another reason why we French favor this law and a solid wall between religion and the state: So we don't have to listen to such petulant, sectarian whining.

In 1905, French Catholics tried to paint themselves as the victims, too. But no matter how you try to distort this ban, it does not victimize Muslim women and girls. It applies to everyone of all faiths equally. One rule. Equal treatment for everyone. Simple, non?

Oh, one last remark about your number 159: You assume you are capable of predicting the consequences of this law for France, the French, and French Muslims. Judging from your posts generally, I'd say you have extremely limited knowledge of those subjects. Don't the facts ever get in your way?

[rman]

130. since he's afraid of headscarfs ("sign of agression")...

he's the laughing stock of the world.

[Sugarbleus]

136. I'm disappointed ..

I think his stance defeats the purpose of Democracy and a free society. Chirac's anti-muslim/anti-religion thing is the cousin to Bush's rabid, protestant, pro fundamentalist thing. think about it.
Neither philosophy sounds good to me.


I guess I'd better never be caught wearing a scarf in France???

[indy77]

137. You are correct, but Chirac is forced to do it...

France is forcing this issue because they are inherently a proud/nationalistic culture. They have a dangerous dichotemy of raison de'tat (nationalism) and secularism. It can only lead to disaster. What's worse is they're becoming the thing they've feared the most....US-like.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theboss]

150. Official policy of religious oppression

Maybe they should ban Muslims from having jobs too. That would fix 'em.

[BonjourUSA]

181. Yes, we live a religious oppression for more than 200 years...

And we are more than 85% of French to like this way of life.

When we say French we talk about Christians Jews, Bouddhists, worshippers of any gods, atheisst.... and Muslims of course.

[mainer]

151. It's like banning gang wear in school

maybe a bad analogy. But so much conflict is inspired among students by these religious symbols (has anyone been keeping tabs on the violence against Jews in the suburbs of Paris?) that it almost seems like Chirac is behaving like the desperate principal, trying to keep rival gangs from beating up on each other. If religious wear is, in fact, leading to conflict, and school is supposed to be a place of learning without conflict, I can understand this move.

[Muddleoftheroad]

154. You don't stop bigotry with more bigotry

France is being typically French. They believe that everything they do is better than everyone else. As a result, they are simply enforcing that parochial attitude.

[Paschall]

213. Uh, as I've said before...

...the majority of French Muslim women support this ban. What is it about you folks? Don't you understand that these Muslim women are French citizens, too?

Or is it that you are so locked into your own racial prejudices that you imagine this as a struggle between native/white French and Arab/African French? If you'd listened to the tales of the young Muslim women from France's battered suburbs, you'd not be looking at this through Post-Segregationist American glasses. And you might understand why they are calling so vocally for this ban on hijab in public schools.

[BonjourUSA]

214. I RELINQUISH, I RENOUNCE but go on..

This explanation of the French way is surely useless, but go on. I relinquish.

I guess it's very difficult for people whose each speech ends with "God bless America" (The god of whom ?) to understand more than 200 years of history and almost 100 years of religious peace in a strict observance of secular principle. Very difficult for them to understand that the French Muslim are, in the huge majority, before all French and secular.

Being compared with people which destroy freedom... I believe I'm going to get nervous.

[Paschall]

217. BonjourUSA

Ce personnage est une sorte de sous-marin. J'en ai une longue expérience. Il faut lui répondre par des faits, mais n'espère pas lui faire changer d'avis. Réfléchir n'est ni son rôle ni son ambition. En réalité c'est assez drôle, parce qu'ailleurs, il défend la notion de guerre entre les civilisations/religions. Bref, c'est un trouble-fête. D'ou son nom, je crois, qui veut aussi dire "embrouiller."

Ne pense tu pas que c'est le moment idéal de parler de la proposition de Michel Charasse d'interdire toute marque commerciale dans les écoles? Plus de Calvin Klein, plus de Nike, plus de Tommy Hilfiger! Cela leur ferait certainement sortir de leurs gonds! :evilgrin:

Non, je ne ferais pas ça le jour du réveillon! ;-)

[Loonman]

177. Now that I think about it.....I really don't like Chirac

For any reason.

[arewethereyet]

195. so does this apply to priests, clerics, nuns and the like ?

I guess they're obliged to wear striped shirts and berets as well so as to not screw up the visuals ?

[Bush loves Jiang]

204. It's too bad Rush Limbaugh and his ilk never discuss these threads...

The nerve of dittoheads and fundies to think that we want to eradicate religious expression.