Why hijab (head scarves) disturbs dictators, democrats

[DuctapeFatwa]

In 1925, Kamal Ataturk, father of post-Ottoman Turkey, imposed the Hat Law, banning the traditional fez cap for men. The penalty for wearing one was death. That was his idea of secularism. ..In 1928, Reza Khan, another soldier who seized power, passed a copycat Uniform Dress Law in neighbouring Iran. It decreed European attire for men and, in 1936, banned the hijab for women. Last year, seven states in Germany banned the hijab for teachers. That was their idea of protecting German identity. On Tuesday, the French Assembly overwhelmingly approved a ban on the hijab for school students. That is their idea of securing French secularism. Some German and French citizens envisage extending the hijab ban well beyond schools. That's their idea of emancipating all its wearers.

Over the years, rulers of a different kind — such as the Taliban in Afghanistan — have also waded in. They decreed the opposite: that women must wear the veil or the chador, on pain of being jailed or whipped. That has been their idea of Islam. As the target of fascist, feminist or racist and mostly male wrath, the hijabi woman is victimized both by those wanting to subjugate her and those who would liberate her. Or she is scapegoated, in the service of one ideology or another. What is it about her that so rattles dictators and democrats alike?

She is the battleground for the armies of those out to purify Islam or demonize it. The fatwas of the German and French governments echo those of Ataturk and the first Shah of Iran...First, there are the Freudian slips, exemplified by Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin: France is "the old land of Christianity" ..separation of state and religion — is already compromised by state subsidies to Christian and Jewish separate schools, where students are taught religious values and, in some cases, segregated by sex.

Teachers and administrators will rule whether a bandanna on a Muslim girl, or a beard on a Muslim boy, would violate the law but not on students of other faiths or no faith at all. Anti-Semitism in France is too deep-rooted and widespread to be laid at the feet of Muslim teenage girls from immigrant homes. The biggest culprits are Jean-Marie Le Pen's millions of followers, whom President Jacques Chirac is, in fact, trying to appease with the hijab ban...Meanwhile, across the Muslim world, people will see the French and German initiatives as another instance of Islamophobia gripping the West. They, like the Muslim girls in Europe, likely will find solace in more Islam, not less.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1076800208681&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

[DianeG5385]

1. It's because they are this generation's jews

Easy victims. What you may not know is that up until vatican council under pope paul VI, catholic women wore head scarves in church. The tradition is not exclusively from Islam.

[plurality]

2. Another little know fact is that many original christian texts...

that were banned by the catholic church as 'heretical' are also included in the Qu'ran. Most of these texts were accepted by all Christians in the first century CE, but after the Roman Empire became the Catholic Church they became 'heretical'.

Sometimes I wonder what happened to all the people that followed Christ's original message as opposed to the one allowed by the authoritarians and torturers.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

29. really?

"many original christian texts that were banned by the catholic church as 'heretical' are also included in the Qu'ran. Most of these texts were accepted by all Christians in the first century CE, but after the Roman Empire became the Catholic Church they became 'heretical'."

Really? Can you tell me the titles? Thanks.

[ieoeja]

39. I couldn't give you any names off the top of my head.

But then, I'm not the one you asked.

Some Christian sects believed Jesus was just another in the long line of prophets. Islam believes that Jesus was just another in the long line of prophets. Did Muhammed come to this conclusion on his own? Did he make it up in a cynical ploy to undercut a rival? Or did he encounter these Christian sects which persisted in the Middle East long after they lost favor in the West?

Been reading a history of Byzantium lately. You can't study early Byzantine history without studying early Christianity. The Question that produced the biggest problem was the nature of Jesus. Early sects fell into one of three camps: man, god, or both.

The original poster was wrong on one count. These texts were far from "accepted by all Christians" for the simple reason that one Christian text contradicted another. Bishops from one sect excommunicated adherents of another sect all the time.

The Circus games within Constantinople were divided into two camps: the Blues and the Greens. In time, cheering for the Blues vs the Greens became a manner of declaring your allegiance in this sectarian split (one of the three wasn't all that popular; "man only", I think). This led to frequent riots and even the occasional storming of the imperial palace. Believe it or not, the Emperors didn't like that and actually decided to do something about it by outlawing one side or the other.

It actually flip-flopped a couple times between early Emperors with one even trying to revive Paganism. Decades removed from animal sacrifices left a populace feeling revulsion for the practice. Then the first time a pagan holiday celebrated by rape came along the Pagan revival died (literally as people took matters in their own hands with regards to Pagan celebrants engaging in this particular sacrament.

[plurality]

43. here's a link to site with all the noncanonical books of the Bible

http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/

All of them are make for VERY interesting reading. The Old Testament Book of Enoch was quite a read. One New Testament book, can't remember the name goes into detail about Jesus as a child and adolescent. Another interesting read is the Gospel of St. Thomas, in the Nag Hamadi texts.

As for the one's that are in the Qu'ran, I can't remember the names off the top of my head, but I think one was about Mary, before she gave birth to Jesus, and there were a couple others. Saw something about it on the history channel. I really need to read all of them, but I have so little time.

[madrchsod]

3. if i remember right

paul was the enlightened one who decreed the covering of head.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. It was going on long before Abraham in that part of the world

Paul was expressing approval of an existing custom. Today, in the Holy Land, you can see women of all religions with covered heads.

More people do it for cultural reasons than any other, not unlike the western custom of women wearing blouses as opposed to going topless, which they do in some places.

[eissa]

36. I'm Christian and we wear them in our church

Many in the orthodox faith require women to wear head scarves in church. Never bothered me. Though I can tell you that if my government forced me not to wear it I would be more inclined to do so.

[corporatewhore]

4. women have always been used by politicians and religon

it is seldom that they truly care and are concerned about women

[Jen]

5. I am ashamed to see France

a progressive nation take up the policies of the Fascist right.

Not only headscarves, but also any Christian & Jewish clothing.
It is good to live in a land with religious freedom. (Until the right starts leading us in Christian prayer every morning)

[Rowdyboy]

7. If the French are truly saying that they want their schools to be secular

without exception, with religious observation equally forbidden for all, then I am in total agreement with them. School should be for education, not coercion or indoctrination.

[Gulf Coast J]

26. Freedom of speech does not stop at the schoolyard door

Or something like that went the Supreme Court decision that allowed students to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War.

Edit. I was close: 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Invalidating the suspension of public school students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war, the Court rendered its opinion that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
http://www.sci.csuhayward.edu/~rmerris/cases.html

[LeahMira]

30. This is a FRENCH issue!

Freedom of speech does not stop at the schoolyard door

You are talking from an American point of view. This is a French issue and they operate under a different constitution and a different set of premises. These may have a lot in common with ours, but you probably shouldn't assume they have everything in common.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Bigotry is EVERYONE'S issue

[pnb]

27. There is a huge difference...

...between practicing a religion and "coercion or indoctrination" though. They seem to want to get in the way of mere practice that is not forced on anyone else.

[PsychoDad]

8. Great Editorial

Excellent points. A very good read, Thank you DF.

[bicentennial_baby]

9. Excellent article!

Thanks so much for posting! The last line is all too true:

"They, like the Muslim girls in Europe, likely will find solace in more Islam, not less."

[Djinn]

10. it's just so unenforceable

I'm (an atheist) in class with my friend Aliyyah (a muslim) I'm wearing a scarf coz I'm having a bad hair day and it's OK - she can't wear one coz she's Muslim???? are people going to have "register" their religion so teachers/authorities can determine whether they are "allowed" to wear a scarf or not.

I went to a secular (and in Australia that means a bit more secular than USA and a bit less than France) school and the kid next to me wearing a yarmulke didn't effect my learning, the girl in the hijab didn't effect my learning and the kid wearing the christian cross also had zero effect. Secular means the state doesn't enforce or endorse a particular religion, so therefore there are no school celebrations of Hannukah, Christmas or Ramadan, it doesn't mean banishing religion from the lives of people within that state.

btw - The French have a public holiday on Easter and Christmas, also a public holiday for "All Saints" day and for "Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary" yep that all sounds pretty hard core secular to me

[Kellanved]

12. well

I found it one-sided and inconsistent.

BTW: The German federal Government has nothing to do with these laws; it's a state affair.

[GreyV]

11. interesting article...

To understand and discover the real opinion Europeans have of Muslims, one should examine the 1990s history of Balkans. Particularly the British and French roles in various Balkan wars. There is no doubt now that Islam IS the new bogeyman. Is anyone following the current scandal in Slovenia, and the attempt of Muslim community there to build a single mosque? They've been trying for the last six years.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[rman]

14. so, you're against freedom of religion?

how intolerant and repressive.

[OhioStateProgressive]

15. prepositional definitions

"of" and "from" are the same word

Freedom of means freedom from

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. No it doesn't

And try bulldozing MY church at your peril.

[OhioStateProgressive]

64. yes it does mean that

I am serious about looking up the term "prepositional definitions"

and I never said your church should be blown up, so why did you?

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. Of and from mean different things

And the now deleted post discussed bulldozing churches.

[OhioStateProgressive]

68. ok

Only in english do we use two words for that...there is a reason why 'de' in spanish means 'of or from'...because it is the SAME word.

as to "prepositional definitions", here is a good essay, read it

http://www.clres.com/online-papers/ajcl78.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Our Constitution was written in English

And is also far more readable than your essay. No thanks.

[OhioStateProgressive]

70. Sir, this is not a pedestrian world

Basically I don't feel like getting overly elitist here, but suffice to say those with degrees in language know this stuff.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. I have degrees

But that was one boring essay.

And, as a veteran of working with language for more years than I care to count, there IS a difference between the two. Perhaps not in other languages, but in English.

[OhioStateProgressive]

76. still incorrect

I am not going to insult you, I didn't mean that, and I knew it would come out that way.

That being said, I am still right and this is still how it is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. LOL

Not in America, you aren't. Maybe this of/from bit works in Spanish or Tahitian. In America, they don't mean the same thing.

[OhioStateProgressive]

79. Yes it does

Juice from the orange fruit. Juice of the orange fruit. Born from the womb of his mother. Born of the womb from his mother. Made of 100% cotton. Made from 100% cotton. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It goes on and on.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. People of Texas, people from Texas

The two mean ENTIRELY different things. People of Texas are the people in that state. People FROM Texas are (drumroll please) people FORMERLY OF Texas.

Freedom OF religion enables the free practice thereof. Freedom FROM religion would enable you to avoid it in all settings. That's one HELL of a difference grammar guy.

[OhioStateProgressive]

83. No

Untrue completely. But I am not arguing with you any longer, i am vrey comfortable with my level of knowledge on this subject.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. As am I

'Nuff said.

[OhioStateProgressive]

85. Maybe, but I'm still correct(nt)

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Thanks for the response I expected

[Vernunft II]

17. You can be religious all you want in the privacy of your home

or meet likeminded people and pray, feast and fornicate together all you want. Just don´t bother me in any way. Don´t force your morale on me, don´t tell me what to do and not to according to your holy book.

I enjoy total freedom from religion of any kind and I´d very much like things to stay that way. That is why all public display of worship should be banned.

[rman]

56. how is someone's wearing a headscarf "forcing morale on you"?

And what would prohibition of expression of religion mean for christian evangelicals, selling bibles, biblical texts at national parks?

[rman]

91. another thing

or two:

1st: the law says "freedom OF religion" not "freedom from religion"

2nd: wouldn't "freedom from religion" consist of not being religious and not being forced to convert to a religion? isn't that what we got already?

You sound as though you want to ban religion out right, which would be in violation of the principle of freedom of religion.

[radwriter0555]

21. I'm against religious expression in my public schools. Keep it at home

and on your own time please.

Religious definition can be done outside of my tax dollars.

[Djinn]

46. so France should stop

having days off for all those christian holidays then?

[Vernunft II]

48. Yes, they should.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

41. My take

not against freedom of religion. Just stupid thinking, the kind found amongst organized religions.

[Kellanved]

16. another article

It sums up the situation in Germany. Pretty well written IMHO.



http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=3598

[Vernunft II]

18. Well, I´d like to see habits and robes banned as well

I´m no more tolerat for christian symbols than I am for muslim.

However, where christianity is almost a dying faith over here we have plenty of fundamental muslims who force their (female) family members to wear a headscarf and there hardly passes a week where you don´t read in the papers that a young muslim woman was killed by her family for shaming them and acting inproper.

Those who complain against the legal steps taken should also consider that there are also muslim voices applauding because they are well aware that their faith is used as a tool of oppression.

[radwriter0555]

20. In a public school, of course.

..

[radwriter0555]

19. No, it's just extreme cult religious iconry rammed down our throats that

we're supposed to be tolerant of.

The hassidic big hats wouldn't be allowed in public schools.

If people want to live a religious life, they should do it at home and not define it within a publicly funded setting, such as school.

Our schools, and all public schools, have the right to be free from religious iconry and garb.

[plurality]

22. Who's ramming anything down your throat?

Is anyone forcing you to wear a hijab, yarmulke, or crucifix? Is your lack of faith so fragile that you have to banish all evidence that there are people with faith from your eyes?

It's funny how many people here complain about having religion and faith shove down their throats, yet that's exactly what they're doing to others by supporting these foolish bans.

[Vernunft II]

23. You don´t understand...

I don´t have any faith. I actually do look down on people who need faith to deal with reality. I feel pity for those poor beings who can´t accept life and death as it is and who need their crutch. Still, I tolerate them in their misery as long as they keep to themselves.

As long as I can´t buy beer on a sunday (just one example of an endless list) they interfere with my life in a manner I can´t accept. They think it´s wrong to drink beer and they´re free to not do so but by outlawing it (or even making it harder) for everyone they cross the line. There are really many examples how religious nonsense interferes with everyone´s daily life and alot of this stuff we just came to accept over the years but it really is WRONG.

Kepp your crutches out of my life I say. Use them if you have to but don´t try to apply your rules to my life.

[plurality]

24. Once again....

how is someone wearing an article of clothing or piece of jewelry interfering with your beliefs? Blue laws are an entirely different equation here and bringing them up is a distraction. What we are talking about is someone's right to wear and believe what they want. I don't see how allowing women to wear scarves on their heads keeps you from believing nothing at all. It seems to me that in your effort to escape religious fanatacism that you've embraced nihilistic zealotry. I don't want ANYONE telling me what I can or can't wear or what I can or can't believe. That goes for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and even arrogant atheists.

[Vernunft II]

49. As I said, the scarf is a weapon

not a piece of clothing. And while liberal muslims agree there is no reference to having to wear it anywhere in the Quran all fundamentalist muslims make their women wear it.

Wearing that thing means, "I don´t want to belong to your society".

[plurality]

61. the hijab is not only worn by fundamentalists

You're resorting to bigoted stereotypes here. I've know plenty of progressive, non-fundamentalist Muslim women who wear the hijab, and they wear it by choice not because of force.

[rman]

93. if the scarf would eradicate French culture, would that make it a WMD?

-

[Bridget Burke]

38. Then why do you use obsolete religious imagery....

On your websites?

Don't you wear your baby-goth/death-metal gear so people can see where you're coming from?

Or are you trapped in a button-down world, hiding your true self in a gray conformity--and wishing the same fate on everybody else?

[Vernunft II]

50. You obviously don´t understand this music...

[rman]

94. it seems you are the only one who understands anything

according to you.

[radwriter0555]

25. being subjected to religious iconry daily, being spoon fed it's

symbolicism in every situation, from folks yelling "MY GOD!" to crosses propped on top of hills; from churches on every street corner to the fairy tales inbued into every day life, we Americans are force fed christianity on a daily basis.

At age 6 I began to notice how christianity has infiltrated every aspect of society, to the point where I am the outsider if I don't comply.

I don't want to see or be exposed to the trappings of religious fanaticism. It makes no sense to me, and I don't want my kid around it. She shouldn't have to choose which god she has to worship, as I was forced to choose a church or a sunday school for indoctrination.

[plurality]

28. so should we also burn down all the churchs, ban all mention of god

in the media and strip all references of those crazy people who believe in a god or gods from the history books to keep everyone else from having to undergo the tortuous process of deciding for oneself what they believe? I know it must have been a horrible experience having to see all those people out there who thought something different than you, but you know that's the way the world works. Funny, but most atheist I know were secure enough in their beliefs (or non-beliefs) that they just ridiculed the believers. Outlawing different beliefs and expressions of those beliefs was always the job of those crazy fundamentalists. It's funny to see that fundamentalism runs in all belief structures, even the non-believing ones.

[radwriter0555]

31. Burn them? No, turn them into museums like the europeans have done..

a tad LESS of the iconry is definitely in order.

I don't want to outlaw anything; I just don't want it rammed down my throat on a daily basis. It offends me. I don't want my kid subjected to the cult brainwashing that religion is trapped with; the headscarves, the robes, the jewelry, the rituals. And were she to go to a public school I would definitely support removal of religious trappings by kids in school.

I believe, fundementally, that religion isn't an aspect of society that I should be forced to participate in or be exposed to. It's not like teevee, I can't change the channel. This crap is all around us, and inundates us constantly.

And yes, in fact my experiences with religion have been nasty and rather horrible. My being ridiculed at a young age for NOT believing in something I supposedly SHOULD have been was actually pretty traumatic. My beliefs were taunted and belittled... I was picked on very aggressively by 'the other kids'; it's not very pleasant to have to stand one's ground at such a young age. Hearing "why can't you be like the rest of the kids' from my own parents wasn't too endearing either. I won't even go into the scandals that have plagued the church; perish the thought that someone condemn child molestors and freaks because they're men of god, right?

This is your new thought for the day: I am allowed to think independently of others and to not lock step; I am entitled to not have to conform to archaic, opressive and antiquated beliefs that I find inane and pointless. I am entitled to have a life free from religion. I am also entitled to express that point of view.

I'm not forcing my views on anyone; so why should anyone's be forced on me?

[plurality]

33. Again I'll ask

How is anyone WEARING SOMETHING forcing their beliefs on you or your children? I understand not wanting prayer and other things that could cause for problems, but people should have the right to wear whatever they want. And telling them they can't wear what they want because you don't like religion is forcing your beliefs on them.

Oh and just so you know where I'm coming from, I don't profess any relgion, but I am of the persuasion that people are free to make their own choices, whether those choices are to believe or not to believe. And restriciting people's ability to practice their faith is restricting their religion.

[radwriter0555]

40. They're entitled to practice their religion, they should just NOT do it in

a setting funded by MY tax dollars such as a public building or a public school.

A scarf denotes a humility and subservience before a diety and a humbleness and piety before their gods.

If they want to be humble and subservient, maybe they should be doing it in their own schools funded by their own money and not public dollars.

[plurality]

44. how can you keep them from practicing their religion in a public setting?

Can you see how ridiculous you're getting?

How about this, their religion also tells them they must be kind, and considerate to other people, using your standard, they'd have to become boorish assholes as soon as they walked into a school because they can't practice their religion.

Evidently I've stumbled onto the new fundamentalism. Never thought atheism could descend into that pit, but I stand corrected.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[LeahMira]

71. Again, France is NOT the USA!

... people should have the right to wear whatever they want.

But people don't get to wear whatever they want. If you work in the Franklin Mint, for instance, you wear a suit that covers you from head to toe so you won't bring in dust where the coins are made. If you work at Wendy's, you are only allowed one ear ring in each ear and no rings in any other pierced body parts. If you are attending a formal event, you have to wear a tux if you're male and a long gown or cocktail dress if you're female. And, if you're a student at a private or parochial school you generally have to wear a uniform, while students at public schools are at least restricted as to how bare they can make themselves.

I'm surprised that some people are making the case that among our unalienable rights is the right to dress however one pleases. I'm also surprised that some people seem to think that the French have to follow the same rules as we do in the U.S. I think that's what's called ethnocentrism, and I thought it was generally considered a bad attitude to have. Aren't we supposed to be accepting of difference and tolerant of diversity?

I think we are more hung up on religion than we like to admit. If the French had a rule that young women under the age of 18 were not permitted to wear lipstick to school, would Americans be up in arms about their restricting young girls' rights? Ah, but if the same young women can't wear a scarf because the scarf is religious, then we imagine that the French are bigots?

We have freedom of religion and religious expression in this country, but many believe that freedom encompasses freedom from religion... that we have a right to not be forced to listen to proselytizing or to see religious images in our public buildings. Don't the French, who certainly don't have to do things the American way, have the right to ask that their children not be forced to see religious expressions in the form of religious garb in their public schools?

[plurality]

74. Human rights are UNIVERSAL rights

But people don't get to wear whatever they want. If you work in the Franklin Mint, for instance, you wear a suit that covers you from head to toe so you won't bring in dust where the coins are made. If you work at Wendy's, you are only allowed one ear ring in each ear and no rings in any other pierced body parts. If you are attending a formal event, you have to wear a tux if you're male and a long gown or cocktail dress if you're female. And, if you're a student at a private or parochial school you generally have to wear a uniform, while students at public schools are at least restricted as to how bare they can make themselves.

The examples you give are of private institutions, they're free to make whatever wardrobe restrictions they want, as everyone that works, or goes there, is free to never go back.

I'm surprised that some people are making the case that among our unalienable rights is the right to dress however one pleases. I'm also surprised that some people seem to think that the French have to follow the same rules as we do in the U.S. I think that's what's called ethnocentrism, and I thought it was generally considered a bad attitude to have. Aren't we supposed to be accepting of difference and tolerant of diversity?

And I'm surprised that we have so called liberals on this board who have never heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This UN document, signed by France, enshrines freedom of religion as a UNIVERSAL right held by everyone, inspite of borders. Or is it too ethnocentric of me to think that our ban on torture should be applied everywhere else in the world?

I think we are more hung up on religion than we like to admit. If the French had a rule that young women under the age of 18 were not permitted to wear lipstick to school, would Americans be up in arms about their restricting young girls' rights? Ah, but if the same young women can't wear a scarf because the scarf is religious, then we imagine that the French are bigots?

I'm not hung up on religion at all, I don't practice it. But the one thing I AM hung up on is FREEDOM. And I'm surprised to find so many people willing to throw it away, all because their practise of atheism depends on them never being confronted with people the have different customs.

We have freedom of religion and religious expression in this country, but many believe that freedom encompasses freedom from religion... that we have a right to not be forced to listen to proselytizing or to see religious images in our public buildings. Don't the French, who certainly don't have to do things the American way, have the right to ask that their children not be forced to see religious expressions in the form of religious garb in their public schools?

More bullshit that has no place in this discussion. It abso-fucking-lutly ridiculous for you to claim that someone is proselytizing by wearing a cross, yarmulke, or hijab. You don't like looking at it, TOUGH SHIT, it's called freedom, GET USED TO IT! I don't like listening to fascist freedom killers either, but you're FREE to say what ever the fuck you want to so I have to deal with it.

[LeahMira]

32. Let's find a middle ground...

so should we also burn down all the churchs, ban all mention of god...

Why is it that when people speak of "a time and a place for everything" and include religious expression in that discussion, some folks start talking about extremes? Is there no happy medium somewhere between burning churches and planting crosses atop every small or tall hill in the country?

Of course people make choices based on their religious beliefs as well as their personal experiences in life and a host of other considerations. At the same time, all religions have some basic elements in common. IMO, the devil is in the details. It certainly is not the Creator that sets people at one another's throats over details that have next to nothing to do with issues of how to live a good life.

I think that if someone is interested in learning about a religion in the U.S. s/he has plenty of opportunity to do that. Our public libraries have books about religion, and the various churches are usually quite welcoming to individuals who seek information and insight. Even this internet offers all sorts of religious information to anyone who can use a search engine.

At the same time, if someone is not interested in learning about religion, I think that person deserves a little respect. The most disrespectful thing, that some religious people insist on doing nonetheless, is to insist that life is not complete without religious belief. These folks see themselves as ordained in some way to make sure that everyone else hears "the message" whether or not everyone else is interested.

I think the French are on to something. There is a time and a place for religion, and in school is neither the time nor the place.

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. The middle ground is choice. Wear it, or don't.

Either requiring or banning head scarves is extreme. For one thing, as someone pointed out earlier, the scarf may be worn for religious reasons, for cultural ones, or simply personal preference.

In my opinion, women are more than capable of deciding for themselves whether they wish to display their hair in any given place, at any given time. The reason for their decision is none of my business.

[Vernunft II]

52. But women don´t get to decide

They wind up with slit throats when they DON´T wear it. THAT´S the reality.

[plurality]

62. That's the reality in Daniel Pipes' all Muslims are evil world...

but not in the real world. Many Muslim women wear hijab out of free will, or at least the one's in the US that I know do.

[rman]

90. so they have to be forced not to wear it? they still don't get to decide..

-

[plurality]

35. Still the point is how is someone wearing a cross, scarf, or skull cap

teaching, preaching, or anything that forces someone to be exposed to religion? It's an article of clothing! It doens't say Jesus or Mohamed or anything on it. The only way a kid who is not religious would no it was religious would be if they asked the person wearing the thing what is was about. Then, oh horror of horrors, they might actually learn something about people different from them! I thought that was the whole point of diversity, being exposed to people different from you so you can understand them and appreciate their differences.

[rman]

60. when you see a church you see reli fanaticism and feel forced to choose?

That's completely incomprehesible to me.

Don't you think seeing a church or a headscarf is totally different from being forced to go to sunday school, or being forced to choose a god to worship?

[Rich Hunt]

45. yes, indeed

...the implication behind such laws is that citizens are incapable of making their own minds up when seeing something as innocuous as clothing.

The implication is that people are not as capable of reason as they most likely are. So, it is also a statement on 'human nature'.

Freedom of religion is about not forcing others to espouse a religion that is not theirs.

This French law is so alien to the American way of thinking. Whenever I feel depressed about the US, this gives me some consolation.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

37. I don't accept your plan to infringe the freedom of religion

"Our schools, and all public schools, have the right to be free from religious iconry and garb."

First of all, schools do not have rights, neither public nor private. Second, all children in schools DO have the freedom of and from religion. Of course a student has the right to wear their religious garb at public school - you don't lose your freedom of religion when you go to school. Students have the right to not wear religious garb.

Thankfully the US has more respect for the fundamental human right of freedom of religion than France does.

[Vernunft II]

51. That´s why the US is run by a bunch of looney christians

while France isn´t...

[GreyV]

53. I doubt that....

Oh, I think that's doubtful. French involvement in Balkan wars, specifically Bosnian War (1992-1995), demonstrated who and what the French stand for.

[Vernunft II]

54. They sure have their own interests (as every government has)

but it´s certainly a religious propaganda.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Oh my God...

I know their is amazingly bizarre thought at DU sometimes, but yours is truly stunning.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Your post is amazing

How dare the rest of us have beliefs or wear unique clothing after all.

[geniph]

47. I actually believe we SHOULD discuss religions in schools

much earlier than we do. They're central to the way a lot of people think, and central to the way a lot of governments operate. I'd like to see true comparative religion classes - ones that take no stance on the "merits" of the various religions, but simply discuss what their followers believe, how they came to be, etc. - taught in all high schools. I also don't have any problems with students wearing symbols of their faith, so long as they don't proselytize other students, and so long as students of ALL faiths are equally free to display their symbols. That would include students who were not believers being as free to wear a shirt espousing an atheistic point of view as a Christian would be to wear a cross, provided they did not specifically denigrate the faiths of others in so doing. (In other words, they could wear a shirt that said, "I don't believe in gods" but not one that said "if you believe in gods, you're stupid.")

It's time to discuss it rationally, not try to pretend it doesn't exist. Whatever I may think of other people's beliefs, my opinions won't change the fact that their faith exists. I wish I'd learned more about other religions when I was younger; it explained a lot about the world to me.

Of course, the fundamentalists - of all faiths - would hate that even more than they hate not being allowed to proselytize. That'd be assigning equal legitimacy to beliefs they consider heretical.

[bicentennial_baby]

63. I agree

I went to boarding school for high school, and we were required to take a number of religion classes. I took Asian religion, Middle Eastern Religion and Culture, Women in the Bible, and The Bible in Art, Music and Literature. I feel like those classes gave me a much more well rounded education and also gave me a valuable perspective that I would'nt have if I had remained ignorant of the spiritual ways of my fellow global citizens.

[JCMach1]

55. Some of the biggest young feminists I know wear the hijab

Get over it already...

[Dutch]

66. So quick to come to the 'rescue' of muslim culture...

But no respect for French culture or the French traditon of secularism which - shock horror - may differ from that of America. And, speaking as a Jew originally from Europe, the attempt to blithely exonerate the Islamic community, or rather (sizeable) radical elements within it, for anti-semitism in Europe sucks- incidentally, most of the (small) protests against this law in France ended up descending in anti-semitic chanting- who'd have thought?

[tishaLA]

73. Thank you

[plurality]

75. This isn't about rescuing Muslim culture

It's about rescuing freedom. And I'm sorry I forgot about the long secular tradition in France. Once again I'll pay my respects to those magnificent atheists that built the Notre Dame cathedral, and all those other secular masterpieces throughout that godless country.

[GreyV]

77. anti-semitic? Muslims in Europe?

There was anti-semitism in Europe way before Muslims arrived in any great numbers. I do recall some neurotic guy with a funny mustache screaming from the top of his lungs about "the threat of Jews". You know, back in 1930s-1940s... what was his name? Anyways, who saved the Jews when European Christians began their infamous "Spanish Inquisition"? Ottoman Muslims that's who.

As for Muslims in Europe and their treatment? Examine the history of Balkans, especially the 1990s. Examine the history of Ottoman Empire. Examine the current situation in Netherlands, and Dutch involvement in 1995 massacre of Muslims in Srebrenica. Examine the current scandal involving Muslim community in Slovenia, and their efforts to build a single mosque ..for almost 6 years. Yeah, examine it all.

[Rich Hunt]

82. wow

You've just made a terrific case for the law's intrusion on people's clothing choices!

:eyes:

It is as if the law did not apply to Christians or Jews or anyone else! It's not as if we have any principles or anything, we're just Islam-coddlers!

Quite logical!

[rman]

92. you'd like to suppress muslim culture?

how did you arrive at 'the right to wearing a headscarf = disrespect for French culture'?
how is it that me being dressed different then you, equates to me disrespecting you?

[Cleita]

80. As a woman, I see the wearing of the hijab as another way

to discriminate against women, but if women want to wear one, it is their choice. They should neither be forced to wear one or not to wear one. I mean Catholic nuns still wear a veil, which is their choice, not a government dictating it. Yet, back in the fifties, religious, either male or female, were not allowed to wear priestly or nun's clothes in Mexico. This is wrong.

Men telling women what to wear is a control issue. Enlightened women who fight for equal rights don't let men or religion or governments tell them how they should look, what they should say or how they should express themselves.

[Aidoneus]

86. Australia:--Women embrace the hijab

Australia must be invaded and liberated. These people must be taught how to properly dress according to "liberal" standards!

Women embrace the hijab
By RACHEL MORRIS
February 16, 2004

MORE young Sydney women are choosing to wear the hijab, or head scarf, to show pride in their religion and encourage others to understand Islam rather than fear it.

At a time when the wearing of the veil has come under intense attack in Europe, Muslim women in Sydney are taking up the practice in unprecedented numbers.

Shops and internet sites selling the hijab have reported a spike in sales in recent months.

The shift in visibility of Muslim women in post-"war on terror" Australian society has also led to the introduction of a magazine aimed at twenty-something Muslim women, featuring fashion articles and cooking tips.

Nineteen-year-old student Feda Abdo said more of her friends were choosing to identify their religion.

"More Muslim women are taking a stand and asserting their identity," Ms Abdo told The Daily Telegraph.

"The hijab is an expression of your identity."

--snip--

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1260&storyid=903221

[GreyV]

88. They are oppressed!

They need to be helped, don't you understand!? Take those degrading heads scarves off sisters!!! Women who say they prefer heads scarves are probably forced to say that by their domineering and fundamentalist pig husbands. They just wanna be free like we! Don't you see?! Don't you see?!

...Whoops!... Sorry about that! I had a little out of control, college bound, yuppie, ultra-feminist moment there.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. France's policy will inevitably cause an extreme reaction

About one hundred years ago, the U.S. received large numbers of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. Most of them were strict Orthodox from little villages in Poland and Russia, and they followed a dress code. The men wore hats and beards and did not cut the hair on the sides of their head, and the married women wore scarves or wigs.

Now the reaction to these new immigrants was harsh enough, but fortunately, I don't know of any cases where schools tried to force Jewish immigrant children to adopt the standard American fashions of the time. As time went on, however, the children assimilated and began reinterpreting their traditions for the American context. Sure, there are still strict Orthodox Jews, but they are in the minority.

I wonder what would have happened if American schools had insisted that Orthodox Jewish boys cut their hair and not wear yarmulkes. I bet that wearing a yarmulke and having long hair on the side would have become a point of pride and that there would be many more Orthodox Jews than there are now.

We must remember that large-scale Muslim immigration to the West is relatively new. If we and the European nations lighten up on matters of dress, then young Muslim women will not feel compelled to wear the hijab to "protect" their heritage.

If the authorities say, "Wear the hijab or not, as you please," then it will lose its value as a form of social rebellion. Young Muslims will find American or European ways of being Muslim.

Contrast the way the state of Iowa dealt with the Amish in the 1960s and the state of Oregon dealt with the Old Believers.

In the 1960s, the state of Iowa decided that the Amish needed to go to high school, despite the fact that they had always quit school after eighth grade. The Amish parents said no, so the state of Iowa literally sent the cops out to force the kids to go to school. News reports showed images of armed men chasing young teenagers through the cornfields. It was a PR nightmare and only hardened the resistance of the Amish to formal education.

At about the same time, Oregon became the home to a Russian sect called the Old Believers. Like the Amish, they are farmers who dress distinctively, keep to themselves, and distrust formal education, although they allow most technology. Oregon decided not to push the issue of schooling, and at first, most Old Believer kids left school after fifth grade. But within a couple of years, they began staying longer. And then longer still. About fifteen years ago, the first Old Believer entered college.

More flies with honey than with vinegar.

You have to pick your battles, and the European governments would be wiser to lay off trivial issues like scarves and concentrate on more serious problems.