Why I Don't Support Banning Headscarfs

[liberalpragmatist]

It's troubling that so many DU'ers think that France is doing the right thing in banning religious symbols like the muslim headscarf, the yarmulke, and large christian crosses.

Isn't one of the principals of liberalism free choice and individuality? A person following the requirements of their beliefs is not threatening anybody. This is not the issue of school prayer, where it can be proselytizing. This is a requirement of garments and presentation. A Muslim girl who chooses to wear a headscarf is not proselytizing, and neither is a Jewish boy wearing a yarmulke or a skullcap.

If the requirements of a religion are that the followers cover their head, or wear a certain item of clothing, such as a turban, then if that person is religious, to NOT wear that item is a rejection of their own beliefs. It's easy for the nonreligious to heap scorn on them, but it's exactly the same as fundamentalist clerics in Iran and in Taliban Afghanistan requiring women to wear headscarfs. Forcing women not to wear the headscarf is just as proselytzing, although, in this case, you're proselytizing a secular culture to someone who wants to be religious.

People ought to have the choice of action. There ought to be freedom to wear what one wants to wear. It's wrong for France to ban headscarfs, just as it's wrong for Iran to require them.

[LiberalVoice]

1. I wish you could here me applauding.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. It's interesting how those who favor it don't favor banning beards

:evilgrin:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Practical consideration

Banning headscarves will simply make observant Muslim girls more adamant about wearing them.

Back in the 1960s, the state of Pennsylvania decided that all those Amish children who had heretofore dropped out after eighth grade had to go to high school. There were some nasty scenes of county sheriffs chasing Amish kids through the cornfields. I forget what the outcome was, but the process was nasty.

Later, when the state of Oregon took in some Russian Old Believers, who also distrusted secular education, the Old Believers announced that their children would go only to fifth grade.

Wanting to avoid a Pennsylvania-type situation, the local school district just let the Russian kids drop out and made no fuss about it. And do you know what happened? Over the years, the Old Believer kids stayed in school longer and longer. In the late 1980s, the first one went to college.

If the various governments simply took a laissez-faire attitude towards religious garb, it would soon lose its value as a form of rebellion against Western society.

It pays to remember that the wave of Jewish immigrants who came over here at the beginning of the twentieth century was mostly Orthodox originally. If the schools had made a big fuss about not letting Jewish kids practice their religion, I bet most American Jews would be militantly Orthodox and separatist today. Instead, the Orthodox are a distinct minority, and most American Jews live just like other Americans except for celebrating different holidays.

The same could happen to the Muslims in a generation or two if we don't treat them like the enemy.

[LeahMira]

89. Lots of thoughts here...

Back in the 1960s, the state of Pennsylvania decided that all those Amish children who had heretofore dropped out after eighth grade had to go to high school.

"Paschal" has done a most excellent job of explaining the French thinking on this in another thread. I've been thinking about what s/he wrote.

It seems to me that the French are operating on the idea that if you give them an inch they'll take a mile, and I don't always think it's appropriate to imagine that people will sink to the lowest level without the restraints of the law to prevent that.

Still, when I see the creep of fundamentalist Christianity into many aspects of American life, I think that maybe the French have the right idea. We certainly wouldn't have all this fuss about nativity scenes in public school holiday displays if we took the same position. As a Jewish person, I really don't care to see a Hannukah menorah in schools or other public places because, IMO, it sort of cheapens the significance of the holiday for me.

Meanwhile, though, it's probably not appropriate to compare American policy and issues with French policy and issues. Although some of us do come from the same generic western background, the more subtle differences should be respected.

If the various governments simply took a laissez-faire attitude towards religious garb, it would soon lose its value as a form of rebellion against Western society.

I wonder what makes you think that headscarves, or any other religious garb, is a form of rebellion against Western society. Islamic women have worn head coverings since long before "Western society" existed. I don't think everything is about us (Westerners). I do think that people make decisions on any number of things without any thought of how it will appear to "Western society."

It pays to remember that the wave of Jewish immigrants who came over here at the beginning of the twentieth century was mostly Orthodox originally. If the schools had made a big fuss about not letting Jewish kids practice their religion, I bet most American Jews would be militantly Orthodox and separatist today. Instead, the Orthodox are a distinct minority, and most American Jews live just like other Americans except for celebrating different holidays.

There are other reasons why Jewish people have been able to assimilate into the U.S., and you are maybe forgetting that the Jewish people established their own schools wherever they were. Learning is a high priority value in the Jewish community. Even in diaries from the Warsaw ghetto there is mention of the need to continue teaching and learning "as usual," in part so that we did not become the low creatures that our oppressors would have had us become.

While it seems that most American Jews today live just like other Americans, it is also a fact that American Jews, even those who are non-observant or "secular," still hold a distinct set of values and priorities that are quite different from the mainstream. Those values and priorities have little if anything to do with how we dress or what we like to eat or which holidays we celebrate and much to do with how we live and think and behave.

[Sir Craig]

102. A word from a progressive atheist...

"I wonder what makes you think that headscarves, or any other religious garb, is a form of rebellion against Western society."

I think there is a bit of confusion here. Like anything else, a symbol (be it a garment, ornament, or whatever) doesn't become a form of rebellion until you try to put restrictions on it or outlaw it, which is what has happened here. The moment the symbol or object becomes taboo, it gains extra significance (call it "The Forbidden Fruit Scenario," for lack of a better term). Unfortunately, at this point the original message of said symbol/object becomes corrupted, which is how you end up with extremists.

As an atheist, I understand the importance of religion to many people–you become bludgeoned with the arguments enough times, you can't help but see how important, nay vital, it is for many people. I have no problem with this. It is not the symbolism that I object to, because I can ignore symbols, nor do I have a problem with educating about religious history. It is the proselytizing that concerns me. If that same Muslim girl told me she couldn't speak to me because I'm not a male member of her family, then we have a problem, because in order to function in society communication must be open, unrestricted, and, hopefully, civil. Other than that caveat, no problems.

Symbols have taken on far too much importance in our society than I feel is good, and I'm not just talking religious symbols. Flag-waving patriots worry me because they adhere to symbols instead of principles. That's how the flag-burners get so much of their power: by feeding on the public's devotion to symbols. Lydia Leftcoast makes a very valid point that if we assumed a laissez faire attitude, the strength behind those symbols would begin to diminish.

So let those who desire to do so wear their headscarves, their crosses, their yarmulkas. In time they may choose not to wear or display them on their own, but in any case no more significance should be given to them as they are creating no harm. Society will continue to adapt and evolve, but hopefully under more tolerant conditions.

[wuushew]

4. Lets keep that other thread alive too

so people know which people support French fascism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=947790

[arewethereyet]

6. thanks for the support

that story and the others I've read realated to it really gassed me

[Paschall]

8. Fascism?

May I ask what of your credentials allow you to apply that extremely offensive label?

But as long as you're drawing up a black list, you'll find my arguments in favor of this ban here. By the way I am French.

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

[arewethereyet]

5. I don't believe that this has anything to do with any of that

its fear of 12% of the electorate who will not support Chirac and other mainstream parties and seek to influence politics in a non-traditionally French way.

Otherwise beards wold be on the table and even small crucifixes / crosses would be outlawed.

They're scared of the rapidly expanding muslim population as its havine a not positive impact on the country and they nees a way to address it with out looking foolish.

Damn, missed again !

[auburnblu]

7. Wait a minute

So large crosses are banned and small ones are not? What about say a Star of David, is that allowed? I wonder what impact this will have on the rest of the EU? Didn't EU Constitutional talks stalled a few weeks back and I've often wondered if common educational standards will be part of a unified Europe.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. Someone on the other thread said religious symbols cannot be visible

except, of course, for beards ;)

[rman]

25. what about a (christian) cross?

-

[PsychoDad]

37. Hey!

It's not like I can take off/put on my beard at will :silly:

But, you have a point... I had not seen before. By targeting the Hijab, the French government is dictating to women what they can and cannot wear. Not men.
Isn't this a form of sex discrimination? Men may wear beards, but women cannot wear hijab?

[OldSoldier]

40. Beards aren't necessarily religious. Hijab are.

Is there a strictly-religious garment that men wear and women do not that is banned by this law?

I don't know. I don't support banning hijab...but I expect the French government, who seems to have a Ministry of Silly Laws, to do something like this on a regular basis. This is the country that has a Ministry for the Preservation of the Language that works relentlessly to keep "borrowed words" out of the language, with the result that a sandwich made from a patty of formed ground beef which has been fried, placed between the halves of a small sliced roll, and garnished with vegetables and condiments is a dish that takes fifteen words to describe in France while the rest of the world calls it a hamburger.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Scarves

So, if a woman covers her head at school, how do you know it's not a fashion statement? Do you only stop her if it is religious?

[OldSoldier]

62. You shouldn't stop her at all. We shouldn't be having this discussion...

Unfortunately, the dumbasses who run the French Ministry of Silly Laws have decided that this is a good idea. (This isn't an anti-French post; every country has a Ministry of Silly Laws.)

It's also unenforceable unless you're going to deploy a squad of Gallic muttawa to beat people for not obeying the no-religion laws.

I remember being part of a church-state thing when I was a little kid. My dad worked for the Bureau of Public Roads, which was this government-issue band of gypsies who built most of the major roads in the West. We were doing a bridge in Wyoming, and all the little BPR kids were enrolled in the local public schools. The elementary school kids went to the Thayne school, and the high schoolers went to Afton because Thayne is a wide spot in the road that has no high school. Or much of anything else, for that matter, but they did have a Mormon church. It's in the middle of Mormon country, what do you expect? Anyway, one day a week the Mormon kids had some sort of religious school at the church, and all of the Mormon kids went to it. All the Thayne kids were Mormons, so basically the school day on Wednesday lasted an hour longer and that hour was spent at the church. When the teacher told the class to line up by the door, I went with 'em. Why not? Everyone else was, right?

So I walked in the house an hour late to a very pissed-off mother. "Where were you?" "At the church!" "Why did you go to the church?" "Everyone else did, I thought we were supposed to." So the next morning the kid next to me said, "your mom didn't like you going to the church yesterday, huh?" Yeah, you could hear her all over the building, I guess she didn't like it too much. But we didn't have to go back to the church, and six months later we'd finished the bridge and left town so I guess they weren't too upset that we didn't want to study the Book of Mormon.

The next spring, the BPR did another project in Thayne. We walked into the principal's office and the first thing out of his mouth was "don't worry, we won't take your kids to church on Wednesdays."

[LeahMira]

98. That was my first thought, too...

They're scared of the rapidly expanding muslim population as its havine a not positive impact on the country and they nees a way to address it with out looking foolish.

... except for the fact that apparently this policy was decided before the Muslims were a significant part of the population of France. IOW, the policy was not established in response to anything Muslims did.

It seems that France has chosen to make the terms of the policy clear to the Muslims who are entering France now and who may not be familiar with the particulars of French law. But, from what French posters here are saying, it seems that the policy predated the Muslims in France.

But I'd guess those French posters will correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. I'm extremely pro religious freedom in schools...

As long as there is no religious activity initiated by the teachers or administrations (moments of silence are iffy). So in this case I definately think Chirac is wrong.

[Frederic Bastiat]

50. Lets not forget the majority of the French people support this

Don't pile it all on Chirac!

[Blue_Chill]

58. deleted

didn't intend to place it here.

[mkultra]

77. Students protected against other students

The problem is in some locations, a teacher or principal will give a group of students enough latitude to empower them to pressure other students, creating an environment where social pressure drives students to align with christian practice. The solution is to allow basic expression as long as it doesnt infring on others rights. In other words, self expression in schools is fine as long as its limited, however religious practice in public schools needs to be curtailed.

[QC]

11. I don't agree with government regulating religious expression, either,

or only in extreme cases, of course, but it seems to me that there is something of a double standard at work here.

Christian fundamentalists (whom I don't much like either) get slammed right here at DU for far less than hijab. They are often criticized here for their beliefs on homosexuality, for example, beliefs that I disagree with (as a card-carrying homo) but which are quite mild when compared to those of fundamentalist Muslims. And a few years ago, when the Southern Baptist Convention resolved that women should be submissive to their husbands, there was great outrage on the Left, even though not even the most radical Southern Baptists have suggested making women cover themselves from head to toe, requiring them never to leave the house without a male escort, forbidding them to drive cars, etc.

In other words, I think that if fundamentalism is considered bad, then all forms of it should be considered bad. If assigning women a lower place than men is wrong, then it should be wrong no matter who does it. I don't understand why we sometimes react to the same thing with outrage and then other times with apathy, or talk of "respecting cultural diversity."

[linazelle]

12. France is not America...

Why do you expect them to act like us?

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. It;'s not Afghanistan either. But Chirac has outdone the Taliban

They required men to wear beards and certain clothing, as well as women.

Chirac prefers to limit his fashion decrees to women only.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Well said

For the record, isn't it odd that we're on the same side of this debate?

[tishaLA]

32. Actually, that's not true

Yarmukles are worn only by men.

[DuctapeFatwa]

100. Beards are worn almost exclusively by men

Some men wear beards for religious reasons, some wear them for cultural reasons, for others it is a question of personal preference.

In contrast, scarves are worn by some women for religious reasons, some wear them for cultural reasons, and for others it is a question of personal preference.

[drdigi420]

83. Actually

since the French law would only apply to govt run buildings, it is nothing like the Taliban rules, which covered the entire country

[Devlzown]

13. I don't like the ban, either.

I grew up in Mississippi and I didn't go to school with any Jewish or Muslim kids, but I did go to school with some Pentacostal kids -- who were referred to as "holy rollers" by heathens like me. Anyway, the girls couldn't wear any make-up, couldn't cut their hair, and had to wear ankle-length dresses, which were usually homemade and looked like something from "Little House on the Prairie." No pants or jeans for these girls. The other kids did make fun of them sometimes and some people thought they believed they were holier than we were. I could also tell that some of them would rather have dressed in "normal" clothes. But would it have been right for the school board to tell these girls' parents to dress them like everyone else is dressed? Those parents would've pulled those girls out of school and they would've been even further ostracized from society. I predict that this meddling they're doing in France is going to have some unintended and unfortunate consequences.

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. That is a TERRIFIC analogy, but I think that the consequences

you refer to are, in this case, anything but unintended.

[arewethereyet]

16. you hit the nail on the head there DTF

Chirac has specific and obvious intents in mind.

If this is how France is, I don't think I like it very much. I'm sure that they could not care less but I do.

[gpandas]

56. But what if my religion...

said "Thou shall not wear clothing indoors"?

[Devlzown]

18. Yeah, I got to thinking about that after

I got through writing. These are sad times we're living in.

[PackedForPerth]

17. Banning...

I'm for unbanning a lot of the things that we've already banned. We went way overboard banning behaviours and many, too hastily defined "abberant" modes of self expression years ago. Banning even more things is just evil.

[evil_orange_cat]

19. I don't support the ban, but it's not the end of the world...

I seriously don't think God will be mad if you don't wear religious garb.

[arewethereyet]

21. yeah, but right or wrong, they don't see it that way

I suppose its a 2003 version of why people of faith fled Europe for our shores. The intolerance is jarring.

[evil_orange_cat]

22. I don't see this as intolerance...

just secularism gone mad...

[rman]

24. secularism does allow for expression of religion

banning an expression of religion is intolerance.

[indy77]

26. Secularism's whole point is to hide religion from the public

Secularism can find itself in a spiraling trap. Pretty soon, French Islamics will start wearing baseball caps in a fundie-way and they'll have to ban that too!

[Paschall]

30. I'll post this link here

Because everyone who isn't cognizant of French history on this question--the secular principle--, needs a refresher.

"The Secular Principle"
http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/secular.asp

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. It is still intolerant

What right does a state have to control what clothes a woman may or may not wear?

[Paschall]

57. If the state is her employer...

...and the state's constitution stipulates that it is secular, I think that the state has every right to demand that she faithfully represent the state as an individual devoid of all signs of religious appurtenance.

On the other hand, the state has made similar rulings regarding women's on the job dress in medicine, the military, food sanitation, and other areas--as it does regarding girl's clothing through school dress codes.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. And if she is merely going to school?

The state can mandate that as well? The state can, in effect, force people to violate their religious beliefs?

The state, in this case France, that does this is bigoted and racist.

[Paschall]

64. If she is a minor pupil in a French public school...

...and this law only would apply to minor pupils, she would have to observe the dress code, like her American counterpart.

But, of course, you're right, that makes all Frenchmen potential Hitlers. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Not potential Hitlers

But tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. And forcing people to disavow their religious beliefs to attend school -- all because they are wearing a scarf or a religious symbol -- is ridiculous.

[Paschall]

67. Well, then let's pity all those American schoolgirls...

...who suffer under the tyranny of not being able to wear see-through blouses and 34 piercings to school.

Despite how you'd like to frame it, France does not--cannot--force anyone to "disavow their religious beliefs." It can and does force people to change their behavior and dress to respect the strict secularity of French institutions, ie for the common good as defined by the French constitution.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Wow, what a strawman argument

Those hypothetical school girls are not seeking to wear "see-through blouses and 34 piercings to school" for religious reasons.

And yes, by forcing people to "change their behavior and dress to respect the strict secularity of French institutions," it is exactly forcing them to abandon their beliefs. That is totalitarian and utterly French.

I think it is a good measure of how ridiculous this issue is that it pulls two people from opposite ends of the I/P issue -- DF and myself -- into the exact same side here.

[Paschall]

76. Oh

So you're saying there is an absolute and inalienable right to vestmental expression for religious reasons?

You're going to have to defend that one. Got arguments?

And you'll also have to explain how any such right supercedes the French constitution and the French princple of secularity. As BonjourUSA has tried to explain, the French model of church/state separation has been forged over 600 years of intermittent and sometimes extremely bloody religious conflict, and produced the longest period of religious peace in France's 2000 year history.

Oh, by the way, your rhetorical sleight of hand is still not working: Obliging someone to remove a yarmulke or hijab is not forcing them to abandon their beliefs. Christ advised his followers to pray in their closets. Or as one young French Muslim who wears hijab put it, "If the law tells me I cannot wear hijab in school, I will take it off. Allah will understand."

Her beliefs are untouched. That is how it works here in France.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. Not everyone follows Christ

In case you hadn't noticed. For many, not wearing their religious garb will keep them from these tyrannical schools, which is what I imagine the French want.

Got to keep those brown people in their place after all.

And France DOES have a big history of doing that. Look at their colonial history if you doubt me.

Now, the French are entitled to put any bigoted, fascist thing in their constitution or laws that they wish. I will simply point it out if they do.

[Frederic Bastiat]

81. You can point it out all you want

But an American painting the French people and leaders as Fascists sounds pretty dumb to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. Easy to do when they do this

[Paschall]

84. As usual you avoid the question

Do you believe people have an absolute right to vestmental expression for religious reasons?

And I don't know what "Not everyone follows Christ" is supposed to mean. The ban in question also forbids Christian symbols; they've been banned in French schools for almost a century. Or did you actually have a point?

In any event, given your sig line--which in today's context clearly suggests a corollary between Christ's sacrifice and the Bush wars--your comments don't surprise me. Obviously you favor the most extreme--because the most profoundly symbolic--intrusion of religion into public affairs.

I'll also add that it's very odd to see you defending "brown people," since Palestinians rank so low in your hierarchy of peoples and usually receive nothing from you but universal condemnation. I guess some brown people are more equal than others, huh? Particularly when they can serve as a pretext for smearing the French.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. No rights are absolute

I did have a point. Christ was cited and I pointed out that the reference didn't mean anything to everyone impacted by this silly ass law.

There is no corollary between ANYTHING * does and Christ. I placed the sig line there after a particularly lovely series of threads where some questioned the Civil War entirely. Since that war granted my ancestors their freedom, I'm a little partial to it.

I don't favor extreme religious intrusion into public affairs. I favor individual freedom and, where there is no strong demonstrable need, I see no reason in that freedom being overruled. There is no strong, demonstrable reason for this law other than French ego, which while strong, is not essential for the operation of a free state.

I defend "brown people" all the time here. Since I am very big supporter of a Palestinian state, much of my criticism flows from their inability to make that happen by continuing to support, enable or tolerate terror, which also has little to do with this discussion. Though, in context, I imagine we could go into great detail about France's efforts in Africa, their abuse of Muslims or even Vichy's lovely record with Jews.

[Paschall]

88. Oh, it's all ego. Fascinating

But whose ego is to blame? Chirac's or the egos of the French Muslim women who are calling for this ban on hijab? Or is it some kind of incorporeal ego that oozes collectively out of the French?

And what is the "strong, demonstrable reason" for forbidding schoolgirls from wearing see-through blouses and 34 piercings? Or any other school dress code?

As long as you're touting the Civil War, let me point out that the French Wars of Religion and the World War II persecution of the Jews under the Vichy government certainly seem like strong, demonstrable reasons for French secularism. But don't let French history disturb your penetrating analysis.

Ego. If that makes sense to anyone, give Muddle a hand and help him put some meaning in this hollow idea.

ON EDIT: Oh, Muddle, since you're using your defense of the Palestinian state as your "liberal, brown-people supporting credentials" here, I must say that I've seen that defense. And I recall that you are unwilling to grant full sovereignty to Palestine. Some state. Meanwhile, you accept Israel's collective punishment of all Palestinians for the crimes of a few. I also recall that you mounted a lively defense of a Southern slave-owner because he was Jewish, and have defended Israeli ties to apartheid South Africa because SA was--as you described it--an anti-Communist bastion. :freak:

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. So much #$*&%&, so little time

You make it sound like ALL Muslim women are calling for this ban. They clearly are not. So, much like any culture, how much is the will of the majority allowed to dictate to the minority?

I think sanity is the "strong, demonstrable reason" for forbidding schoolgirls from wearing see-through blouses and 34 piercings.

Actually, I would argue France's history of abusing those who have religion is EXACTLY the reason why this law should NOT pass.

And, contrary to your statement, I didn't list my defense of a Palestinian state as my "liberal, brown-people supporting credentials." I don't have to. Every action I take every day is an act I take as a person of color.

You are again wrong about my thoughts on Palestine. As long as the Palestinians can make peace and shut down terror, I support a full-fledged Palestinian state.

As for my "defense" of Judah Benjamin, it was not as you portray it. That he was more forward thinking than many in the South is a given. To perceive that as a defense is quite a stretch. But since he wanted to arm Southern blacks, he was definitely ahead of the curve of most of his compatriots.

Israel had ties with South Africa as did every other Western nation. Why does that surprise you?

Now of you want to continue that line of assault, perhaps you should try, as I do, to live every day as an African-American in the South and see how that feels.

[Paschall]

92. France has a history of "abusing those who have religion?"

Well, so is it the ego thing or just a general anti-religion thing? Besides, you still haven't explained about the ego part. And I want to hear more about this anti-religion history.

Concerning the "line of assault," you should not assume that I don't know what it means to live as a member of a minority in the American South. Because I do, thank you very much.

And need it be mentioned, although you've offered more than your share of insulting epithets, you still haven't given any coherent arguments against this French law?

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. Just those who don't hold the popular choice

Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc.

I have offered freedom and its lack as the line of assault against this bigoted law. Clearly, France prefers the latter.

[LeahMira]

90. All schools have dress codes...

And forcing people to disavow their religious beliefs to attend school

... Some of the dress code requirements probably don't bother most students because most students dress reasonably nicely for school (or their parents make them dress nicely). Anyhow, students aren't allowed to wear torn jeans or short shorts and girls aren't allowed to wear tube tops... things like that.

We also don't allow them to wear T-shirts with certain slogans because those slogans are disruptive. When I was teaching, they couldn't wear T-shirts "advertising" religious events, like summer camps, etc., or with "Praise Jesus" or something like that either. That was for the same kind of reason that they couldn't have T-shirts with certain words on them, like "I'm so happy I could just shit." It was disruptive and drew the attention of other students, for better or worse, to the statement on the shirt instead of to the lessons.

[LeahMira]

99. Wondering...

The state can, in effect, force people to violate their religious beliefs?

Wondering if Muslims are free to establish their own schools in France, and if the French government sets any educational standards for these schools?

Since Muslims are a large percentage of the population, it would seem that they would have a choice here. With their numbers, it would seem that they might have the resources to establish schools where young women could dress as their religion dictates they dress and still not be deprived of an education. That's what Catholics have done in the U.S.

But "Paschall" mentioned in another post that young Muslims have a sense that education in a key to their future success and that religious tradition isn't. Maybe the Muslim students are glad for the "excuse" to not follow the old traditions that their parents would have them follow? And really, shouldn't students be free to decide their religious beliefs for themselves?

[blondeatlast]

49. Most of us are extremely troubled by the policy of assimilation as well.

I am.

[LeahMira]

52. I'm wondering, Paschall...

... and since you are French, can you say if the Islamic population in France is creating any kinds of housing problems, or welfare problems, or whatever? Is there any parallel between the situation in France and the situation in some parts of the U.S. where Mexican and Central American immigrants (legal or otherwise) are seen as "taking jobs from Americans" or are requiring bilingual education in the schools or some other such situation? I find it incredible that anyone could get so upset over how someone dresses.

Perhaps I'm applying American standards inappropriately, but here in Delaware we see students walking down campus with spiked bright orange hair right next to women from India in their saris. No one really much notices them. So, I wonder what else is going on in France that is making the French feel so affronted by the way Islamic women dress.

[Paschall]

61. None of the American comparisons are applicable

I provide a little information on the French context in this post. There may be other relevant comments on that thread by myself or BonjourUSA, another French DUer.

To put it succinctly, Islam is the second largest religion in France (far larger than Protestanism), but the situation of Muslims and Arabs in France is too complicated to explain here. You would have to understand the history of French unification, the French concept of individualism and communitarianism, and the history of the French colonies--the wars and decolonization; and know something about current events in North Africa.

It also would help to understand that the American concept of religious freedom is not a perfect match to the more far-reaching French concept of secularism. Not only does the French constitution bar the establisment of a state religion, it goes farther than the US constitution and stipulates that the French Republic is secular.

I will say this though: you and others here seem to assume that this is a question of the French being "affronted" by hijab or hoping to change Muslims' beliefs. Common sense dictates against legislating over a perceived "visual offense" particularly when it involves clothing, and even the dumbest among us knows you can't legislate beliefs. Please give us French credit for understanding at least those things.

So what's the law for? This law is designed to enforce the authority of the French Republic where it may be challenged by religious authority in state-run and state-funded establishments. It aims to affirm the principle that French public schools and state institutions are religion-free zones.

Beyond those boundaries, on the streets of France, women and girls can wear hijab; French law guarantees them that right.

If you haven't already seen it, I recommend this essay on the French Secular Principle: http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/secular.asp

While you're reading through that, keep in mind the scenes of the St. Bartholomew Day massacre from Isabelle Adjani's "La Reine Margot." Unified France was barely a century old in the late 1500s when those scenes took place. Wars of Religion? No, thank you, we've already given.

[LeahMira]

70. Interesting...

To put it succinctly, Islam is the second largest religion in France (far larger than Protestanism), but the situation of Muslims and Arabs in France is too complicated to explain here. You would have to understand the history of French unification, the French concept of individualism and communitarianism, and the history of the French colonies--the wars and decolonization; and know something about current events in North Africa.

Which, unfortunately, I don't.

I will say this though: you and others here seem to assume that this is a question of the French being "affronted" by hijab or hoping to change Muslims' beliefs. Common sense dictates against legislating over a perceived "visual offense" particularly when it involves clothing, and even the dumbest among us knows you can't legislate beliefs. Please give us French credit for understanding at least those things.

Again, I have to apologize. I'm afraid I made that judgement based upon some of the comments I've heard and read here in the U.S. And I was trying to get some understanding of the issue by relating it to something I am familiar with.

We know that most female Muslim students in French public schools want to be protected from this creeping fundamentalism, which seems to be exercing increasing pressure on them, particularly over the past five years. They want to be free to participate fully in school because they know that as a disadvantaged minority, education is their surest path to upward social mobility.

So, then, are you saying that the French affirm the right of all students to receive a complete education, and that if their religious observance makes this education impossible then the religious observance must be curtailed at least while a student is in school? And are you also saying that the students generally are in agreement with this idea even though their elders may not be?

This law is designed to enforce the authority of the French Republic where it may be challenged by religious authority in state-run and state-funded establishments. It aims to affirm the principle that French public schools and state institutions are religion-free zones.

Actually, that sounds like a better way to handle the issue than what we do here in the U.S.

I suppose that part of my difficulty is that I never really thought of headscarves as so much a religious tradition as a cultural tradition or a personal statement of identity. Admittedly, I tend to judge as an American... that's who I am... but hopefully I can also learn to see from others' point of view. I appreciate your taking the time to try to explain in such detail. I will keep this thread bookmarked for a while to read more comments from you and others.

[rman]

93. quote from the link: "(securalism) shall respect all beliefs"

Banning headscarfs as an expression of religious belief is obviously not "respect".

So this ban actually violates secularism.

[blondeatlast]

44. It puts a limit on free expression; hence the slippery slope . . .

[chicaloca]

23. I think it's ridiculous.

First of all, most Muslim women I know don't understand Westerners' obsession with the hijab. As far as I can tell, it's just another example of our complete obsession with women's bodies, and, as many here have said, it's just another way to regulate what women wear and do. I mean, really, either way it's a bunch of men telling women what to do (and yes, the French government _is_ primarily men). Quite frankly, with the way men treat me on the street here in Minnesota when I'm wearing anything less than a huge bulky jacket, gloves, a hood, and baggy jogging pants, I can understand all too well how Muslim women would want to be spared the disgusting comments and leers that I and my non-veiled friends get everywhere we go.

Furthermore, there's all this talk about the hijab as oppressive, blah, blah, blah, Muslim men are evil women-haters, blah blah blah. I'll certainly admit that there are a lot of problems with how many Muslim cultures treat women, but how the hell is banning the hijab in schools going to change that? I see this everywhere in politics--everyone deciding for women what's best for us, without consulting a single damn woman. Well, I'd like to offer my opinion, although I'm sure no politician, French or American, will care. I do NOT want restrictions placed on me, and I don't give a rat's ass if it's the government or my husband dictating what I wear. It's the same damn thing no matter who does it. Why not help women for real by giving funding to domestic violence shelters, by offering culture courses to help immigrants understand their new countries, and by offering scholarships for Muslim women who want to go to college? Why not give funding to train teachers in sensitive cultural and gender issues, or build women's centers in primarily Muslim neighborhoods?

Really, why doesn't that happen? Am I as a woman not worth that much? Are Muslim women not worth that effort? Banning the hijab is a band-aid solution that does _not_ address anything that would significantly change their situation. In fact, it will probably achieve exactly the opposite of what Chirac wants, when French Muslims decide to build their own private schools and segregate themselves even more to avoid the restrictions of the government. Then the women Chirac claims he wants to help will be beyond his reach--but he'll have gotten reelected because the non-Muslims in his country won't see women wearing hijabs anymore. And the Muslim community will be abandoned and betrayed again, just like the West does every time we say we're going to help them.

On a completely different train of thought, how will the government decide what _is_ a religious symbol? If I wear my Isis necklace, is that considered a religious symbol? Some people may wear it simply because they're interested in ancient Egypt, but what about people who _do_ follow the Kemetic religion, or other lesser-known religions? It would be awfully silly to allow me religious freedom but not my Christian, Jewish, or Muslim friends. In short, I don't think a ban like this could be enforced.

And, for the reasons stated above, I don't think it should come to pass in the first place.

[blondeatlast]

45. (standing up) Brava! clapclapclapcalpclap!

Wish I'd said that.

[Paschall]

63. An interesting rant, though rather Americano-centric

Things to keep in mind:

1) Most Muslim girls and women in France support this ban on hijab in schools and in civil service jobs.

2) The law is not designed to "change Muslim culture." The law's purpose is to define obligations and affirm rights.

3) Muslim women were consulted on this law. Many women's groups addressed the president's special commission on the subject. It seems a number of legislators who initially had a more permissive attitude were swayed by the personal stories of young women in France's disadvantaged suburbs, particularly the testimony of one group of young Muslim feminists who led a march across France under the banner "Not Whores or Slaves."

4) You ask, "Why not help women for real by giving funding to domestic violence shelters, by offering culture courses to help immigrants understand their new countries, and by offering scholarships for Muslim women who want to go to college? Why not give funding to train teachers in sensitive cultural and gender issues, or build women's centers in primarily Muslim neighborhoods?" Many of those things depend on local authorities and are being done, particularly where the French left is in power. On the national level, though, you should be aware that public university in France is virtually free, barely a few hundred dollars annually. Meanwhile, Chirac has the distinction of being the first French president to appoint a Muslim to his cabinet; the appointee is in charge of sustainable development and is a woman by the way. And like all mothers in France, Muslim women with children receive a monthly child-rearing allowance from the state, and have equal access to state-run day care centers and kindegartens at very little cost. Not to mention our universal medical coverage, with excellent pre- and post-natal care.

5) French Muslims cannot build their own schools without authorization from the state. At least not schools for children under the age of 16, because public or public-approved education is obligatory for all children until that age. Homeschooling is nonexistent in France.

Does that help?

[kodi]

27. good gracious, what goofy logic & ignorance of modern france

the crux of your argument is found in your statment here:

"Isn't one of the principals of liberalism free choice and individuality? A person following the requirements of their beliefs is not threatening anybody."

yes, it is one of the principles, but not the only one, nor the one that overrides all the others.

the attitude which flows from a liberal intereptation of the basic social contract of a consented people does not mean that it is a suicide compact that ignores relevant issues of concern of the majority.

doctrinaire "liberalism" is just as stupid as doctrinaire conservatism when they ignore either social or cultural realities.

your second statement is not necessarily factual, and in fact, and in france, with a large fundamentalist muslim population it is perceived as a threat to the public safety by such displays in public schools.

but, you might not know this, or perhaps you do and just ignore this reality

nor does the US allow either mormons or muslims to have more than one wife, yet their religions allow this (okay, the mormons backed done on this tenet 120 years ago to get statehood for utah), but mohammed, blessed be his name, allowed this and we don't... even though the case can be made that it, as in your own words "is not threatening anybody."

so, by your logic, you should be for allowing bigamy too.

are you?

[Frederic Bastiat]

53. Best rebuttal so far

Bravo!

[DuctapeFatwa]

54. Please explain why scarves on women are a threat but beards on men are not

?

[kodi]

71. bearded men unlike scarved schoolgirls aren't primarily religious displays

.

[Blue_Chill]

59. hmmm

I think there is a flaw in your logic. You seem disregard varying degrees in favor of absolutes. Allowing polygamy creates havoc for governments who have been writing laws based off paired structures for decades. Allowing personal religious display creates no such problem.

[kodi]

69. actually, i am the one insisting on varying degrees in place of absolutes

the absolute of the original poster's argument is that personal freedom is paramount and does not consider other affects on a society such liberties engender.

as well, the havoc of bigamy towards a society can well be matched by the havoc in response to those who insist in slamming their minds into the faces of others.

this, as well as the further intellectual militantism of french speaking muslims is exactly what the french fear.

i dont live in france, and i wouldn't advocate such restrictions in the US, but i am facile enough to understand their concerns

[Blue_Chill]

72. I'll grant you that however

This notion that Islam is a threat to their society I simply can't swallow, no matter how much of this 'It's France they are different' intellectual slush I use to in attempting to wash it down.

What affects are they afraid of and why should I support such xenophobic extremes? It seems to me this reaction by the frech is based in fear and little else. Not all too different from the anti-gay crowd in the US.

[kodi]

73. clearly, you dont live in the south of france or you would reconsider.

and its not just the french either, even in liberal belgium (where by law there must be equal numbers of men and women on the ballots), the native belgians are scared of what the immigrant muslims are doing to their culture.

significant parts of brussels looks like cairo now and the belgians dont like it one bit.

[blondeatlast]

74. Significant parts of Phoenix (quite significant) look very much like

Nogales, Sonora, Mexico.

I like it, frankly.

[bpilgrim]

79. you have just illustrated the danger of the slippery slope

and where does this all end?

a RELIGOUS WAR

don't play into their hand

peace

[Vernunft]

28. ...

...

[Paschall]

29. ... deleted ...

[dudeness]

31. I agree libpragmatist

with your views ..in a perfect world..but as we all know it is not that perfect..

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[PsychoDad]

35. Agreed.

Freedom of choice means free to make a choice others may not like or agree with.

[Frederic Bastiat]

36. You have to understand French immigration

To see the underlying reasons for the ban, when you immigrate to France you are expected to "assimilate" a policy that has been as old as the French themselves. When you immigrate to France and places like Quebec (where I live) it is expected of you to accept and conform to the culture unlike immigration to places such as the U.S

What France is trying to avoid is the ghettoization of its society based on religion/race whatever. Everybody is accepted as French and so they should act French, whatever that means.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. So it is forced assimilation

Can't you see where some folks would object to that?

[Frederic Bastiat]

42. Yes it is forced

And it happens more often than you think in French cultures. For example, since I am an immigrant in Quebec, my kids will have to go to school in French unless I take them to private school - we have no choice in the matter.

Bottom line according to the French is all cultures are equal but some are more equal than others.

[blondeatlast]

46. That's the bigger issue, but I disagree with the "assimilation" policy

just as much.

Let's remember, all of us DUers are unMerkan for not supporting our pResident . . .

Baby steps to fascism on both sides of the Atlantic . . .

[Frederic Bastiat]

80. Then don't immigrate to France!

If you have issues with assimile and their secularism. And if you happened to be born there then your E.U passport will help you emigrate elsewhere.

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Interesting

The French version of "love it or leave it."

Fitting for this discussion.

[BonjourUSA]

82. I often recall these French stats

4% of the French population pratice a religion (a little bit more in the French population with muslim belief : 7 to 8%)

85% of the French "muslim" women want to ban all religious symbols in the public schools and at work (among them 46% want to do that with a law)

Stop to think we detroy freedom !

[Enjolras]

38. Don't the Turks do this already?

I remember reading that the Turkish parliament had refused to seat a newly elected female minister because she was a fundamentalist and insisted on wearing the head scarf. I believe I also heard that head scarves were banned at public universities there. An Islamic fundamentalist elected Prime Minister in 1996(?) resigned shortly after taking office, at the "suggestion" of the Turkish army. And this a predominantly Muslim country!!

You can call that discrimination if you wish, but there is no denying this fact: the dangerous wave of religious fanaticism that has enveloped so much of that region has pretty much stayed away from Turkey. And I can think of only one other country in the region where the government was so aggressively secular -- Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Of course, there's a critical difference; Turks enjoy civil liberties and democratic elections. Just like the French.

France may not be in the mideast, but its Muslim population is growing by leaps and bounds. Among the most pious of that population there will be radical, militant Islamists. How do you seperate the wheat from the chaff?

[blondeatlast]

47. A woman doesn't have to be "fundamentalist" to wear a hajib

anymore than I have to be a fundamentalist to be a Christian. Extremely twisted logic.

In college, one of the women in our feminist group wore a hajib.

France may not be in the mideast, but its Muslim population is growing by leaps and bounds. Among the most pious of that population there will be radical, militant Islamists. How do you seperate the wheat from the chaff?

How do we do it here? Gitmo and the Patriot Act?

I think not.

[blondeatlast]

43. I couldn't agree more. Thanks.

[blondeatlast]

48. For those who see nothing wrong with the "assimilation" policy,

try this:

Substitute the word "US" for "France."

[MrPrax]

51. Bad move indeed...

The ironic thing about 'democratization' is that one of the hallmarks of Western civilization is the protection of religious minorities.

It does seem strange that we want to encourage countries in the ME (and eslewhere) to be more 'like us' by demanding they clampdown on minority rights? Essentially we are asking them to conduct 'civil wars' and tear up their societies for our benefit.

What the French are doing is understandable within the context of national chauvanism and anti-clerism only--little of it is compatible with fundamental freedoms

[grannylib]

55. I agree, the ban is a terrible idea. There is a huge difference between

staying true to one's own beliefs and trying to force them on others. I like being able to wear a cross necklace or earrings or pin if I want to, but would never dream of either requiring others to wear it, or ban others from wearing it. Same for other religious symbols.
That's the whole point of freedom of religion: it should allow us to practice as we believe without any kind of requirement that others act/believe as we do.

[LiberalFighter]

66. What about elderly ladies?

[Paschall]

68. What about them?

Do you know any that attend French primary or secondary schools, or who are French civil servants? This ban only applies to those individuals, and only in schools and at the civil service workplace.

[rman]

94. civil service workplace

It is, and always has been quite common for elderly ladies (muslim or otherwise) to wear a headscarf (not for religous reasons).
Some are likely to be working at a civil service. Are they to now prohibited from wearing a headscarf?

And if wearing a relgious symbol is prohibited in schools etc, are ie christian crosses now also banned?

[BonjourUSA]

95. hi !

The elderly ladies who wore a headscarf are retired or dead ! This fashion is ended in the 50s. And my grandmother wore a headscarf outdoor when the weather was cold or windy but not at work !

For the last question, read the posts above (Paschall)

[LeahMira]

96. Never in my lifetime...

It is, and always has been quite common for elderly ladies (muslim or otherwise) to wear a headscarf (not for religous reasons).

... have I seen an "elderly" lady wearing a headscarf on the job.

I imagine some ladies might wear a scarf to keep their hair out of the way if they are operating machinery, and waitresses often wear hair nets to keep their hair out of the food, but a lady working as a clerk or a receptionist or a secretary? When have you seen that?

Besides, "elderly" ladies are retired.

[fishguy]

101. Are you in France?

If not, why argue it?
Do the French get involved in the internal affairs of the US?