19-12-2003 21:14									#31
	Put an end to popups!

LOTM:
You now understand the core of the problem. The fact is, that there is a huge grey zone in what religious symbol is deemed "ostensible" and what isn't.

We want to conciliate several incompatible demands: that everybody gets a decent education, that we want schools to be devoid of religious proselytism, yet we don't want to ban all believers from public schools.

The headscarf debate is not new, and it has been an headache each time. I don't think the current law brings anything significant to the previous laws of the past. The only good thing is that it does clearly define some of the most common behaviors that are not to be alowed in school anymore.

	19-12-2003 21:14									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Now, if the kid wore a T-shirt where it's clearly written "I don't eat pork cause I am Muslim/Jewish", that T-shirt would be banned.

and if someone wears a t-shirt that says the reason i wear a headscarf is cause im a muslim, that would be banned. And if not, then its ok - shouldnt it be?

	19-12-2003 21:18									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DanS This sounds very authoritarian to American ears.

A political party, a religion, or any kind of association claiming that they apply their own laws, rather than the laws of the country where they live, can only be outlawed right away.

Or would you just wait until they have actually breached the laws and then put them in jail?

	19-12-2003 21:24									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor LOTM: You now understand the core of the problem. The fact is, that there is a huge grey zone in what religious symbol is deemed "ostensible" and what isn't.

But the grey zone is handled hypocritically, and with an assumption that a rule of modesty maintained by some muslims is a sign of proselytization, while one held by christians and atheists is just natural.

Example: France has, IIUC, a large community of "naturists" who think its just fine to live without clothes (weather allowing) Most French (whatever they do at the beach) Catholics and atheists consider this immodest - and many Catholics would cite their religion as evidence why. Does that mean that wearing clothes is proselytism, and should be banned? Yet to many groups of muslims wearing a headscarf is simply a requirement of modesty.

The notion that any assertion of the truth of your religion is proselytism is odd, at least to english ears. But accepting that, it seem the ban on proselytism is self contradictory, at least where religions that regulate everyday life (like Islam and traditional Judaism) are concerned. People make choices in their everyday life CONSTANTLY - and followers of such religions are called to follow religious edicts constantly - the French law may make sense in relation to Roman Catholicism circa 1905, a relgion with less regulation of everyday life than islam, and whose cultural assumptions (about modesty, diet, etc) were shared by French Atheists at the time (and largely are still so shared, naturists excepted)

	19-12-2003 21:25									#35
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT A political party, a religion, or any kind of association claiming that they apply their own laws, rather than the laws of the country where they live, can only be outlawed right away. Or would you just wait until they have actually breached the laws and then put them in jail?

Yes, precisely.

Which means you dont have to have the state organize them, authorize them, or in any other way impinge on their affairs.

	19-12-2003 21:27									#36
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark yeah like you did long ago for the Jews, with the result that when some (liberal) friends of mine went to Paris they had trouble finding a Synagogue that they felt comfortable with (IE one where men and women had equal roles) Its a little better in UK,IIUC, but not all that much.

I know nothing about the synagogues net, and still less about what a comfortable synagogue is, but I am under the impression that you are not fair on this one.

Have you been told that the French jews have had difficulties with the state about building synagogues ?

	19-12-2003 21:27									#37
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT A political party, a religion, or any kind of association claiming that they apply their own laws, rather than the laws of the country where they live, can only be outlawed right away. Or would you just wait until they have actually breached the laws and then put them in jail?

You guys make John Ashcroft look like the paragon of tolerant liberalism

	19-12-2003 21:29									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT I know nothing about the synagogues net, and still less about what a comfortable synagogue is, but I am under the impression that you are not fair on this one. Have you been told that the French jews have had difficulties with the state about building synagogues ?

No, but that the Consistoire was organized at the behest of the French state, institutionalizing the dominance of Orthodox synagogues in French Jewish life.

	19-12-2003 21:32									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

LOTM:
I know for the modesty issue, and despite being generally against religion meddling in everyday life, I understand that wearing a Scarf for a muslim woman is sometimes like wearing bras/panties for a western woman.

However, unlike the general agreement on wearing clothes, it is widely considered that the Scarf is a sign of submission from women to men. An increasing literature about it, as well as the new feminism coming from the ghetto, sure does help such perception.

The woman's submission to man is completely opposite to the core values of the Republic, and that's why we dislike this symbol so much. But this dislike isn't the very reason of banning scarves and kippas; it has to do with the School being a place where only Republican values and identity are taught, in the best 3rd Republic tradition.

	19-12-2003 21:35									#40
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Yes, precisely. Which means you dont have to have the state organize them, authorize them, or in any other way impinge on their affairs.

Never heard of Mac Carthy ?

	19-12-2003 21:35									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Which means you dont have to have the state organize them, authorize them, or in any other way impinge on their affairs.

Associations are created freely and don't require the State's approval for their creation. The State can forbid them however, if these associations are unlawful.

I don't think (however I'm not sure, I'm no law expert) it is unlawful to preach the superiority of one's law over the Republic's one. However, it sure is unlawful not to apply the Republic's law, even when it is opposite to the association's rules.

	19-12-2003 21:46									#42
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Do krishna's have to grow hair?

Solution: School Uniforms. They work for the japanese (in more ways then one, heehee...)...

	19-12-2003 22:13									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT Never heard of Mac Carthy ?

Ever hear that he was repudiated almost 40 years ago?

Are you admitting that the French approach is McCarthyite?

	19-12-2003 22:19									#44
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor LOTM: I know for the modesty issue, and despite being generally against religion meddling in everyday life, I understand that wearing a Scarf for a muslim woman is sometimes like wearing bras/panties for a western woman. However, unlike the general agreement on wearing clothes, it is widely considered that the Scarf is a sign of submission from women to men. An increasing literature about it, as well as the new feminism coming from the ghetto, sure does help such perception.

Presumably that view is NOT held by the women who wear the scarves. Isnt it upto them to decide whether wearing such scarves is submission or not, NOT for feminists, even if they are muslim and are widely admired (and I would certainly admire them) that what choice in a liberal society is about - freedom for those customs that we DISAGREE with, as well as for those we do. Its not clear to me that the Republican, laicist traditions you cite are really reconcilable with liberalism.

	19-12-2003 22:22									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Now dont get me wrong - France is a soveriegn nation, and has the right to be slightly illiberal in this respect - what is NOT appropriate is for a country that fails in its liberalism in this way to preach to a liberal democracy like the US on matters such as the death penalty, etc.

	19-12-2003 22:25									#46
	Re: US Criticises French Headscarf Ban Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS Don't know how it's any of the Bush administration's beeswax, but this does seem like a worthwhile argument. It illustrates the difference in our views of the separation of church and state

The difference being that in this case your view is right and theirs is retarded?

And it's everybody's beeswax.

	19-12-2003 22:30									#47
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Are you admitting that the French approach is McCarthyite?

Not at all, I was just illustrating your statement :

quote: Which means you dont have to have the state organize them, authorize them, or in any other way impinge on their affairs.

Mac Carthy slightly impinged of the communist party affairs, and on the life of hundreds of American citizens for political reasons. I assume that this was made under the cover of the US law, and I conclude that as far as authoritarianism is concerned, we are at par.

	19-12-2003 22:30									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

OK, two things for Oncle Boris today:

Spiffor and Davout:
The scarf can be seen as a symbol of women's submission towards men in Muslim societies, but so can be bras or high heels in the Western world. More precisely, the "beauty dictatorship" imposed by the "free" market in magazines could be seen as culturally different way of implementing a similar rule. Just go back a few decades earlier and think of the corset. I think we have a definite case of cultural relativism with a blatant lack of self-criticism.

I won't deny that some Muslims may use their religion as a tool to justify oppression. Still, religion remains a cover. In the same way Christianism has evolved along with our values to become what it is now (where I live, in Canada, I know many priests who support woman priesthood, gay marriage, right to abortion, and contraception), can Islam be integrated into our Western world. Remember, just 50 years ago, Catholic zealots were preaching against women's suffrage "because it was against the natural order of things".

So, you want to forbid the symbol behind the oppression, denying that real emancipation will come through the free-thinking that should be taught in school. Whatever is the reason why women choose to wear the scarf, we want them to be free of their choice. This can be achieved through legal protection (prosecuting physical abusers) and tolerance. Banishing the scarf won't kill the reasoning behind it; nor can we even pretend to know it by reading in each and every individual's mind. Heck, I've even heard of women who wore it as a feminist symbol, to protest against excessive erotisation of the woman's body.

Banishing the swastika won't kill racism and intolerance. No one had to forbid the Christian cross to defend women's suffrage. Even more, forbidding religious symbols could be seen as intrusive, and nurture increased fundamentalism and obscurantism.

My conclusion: teach them our values of freedom, and let them make the bloody choice. They can wear any symbol they want, as long as it is not a threat to security (read: sikh daggers).


And to LOTM:
No, Christianism can be about as intrusive as Islam on one's regulation of everyday life. Just think of Lent vs. Ramadan. I assure you, any religion's oppressivity only lies in one's willingness to be abused! (ok, that may not be completely true of the Inquisition... )

	19-12-2003 22:36									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: The difference being that in this case your view is right and theirs is retarded?

Hey, you said it, not me!

	19-12-2003 22:37									#50
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Has everybody understood that the headscarf was banned only AT SCHOOL ?. They can wear it the rest of the time and where they want

	19-12-2003 22:38									#51
	Suffering from ads?

DAVOUT: That's not a good comparison. As LOTM says, McCarthy was repudiated a whole long time ago and the laws that enabled his work were judged unconstitutional.

	19-12-2003 22:40									#52
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT Has everybody understood that the headscarf was banned only AT SCHOOL ?. They can wear it the rest of the time and where they want

So? Why is it the State's business to interfere with a person's religious beliefs at school?

It's not like they're asking the government to pay for their headscarves or yarmulkes...

	19-12-2003 22:42									#53
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Presumably that view is NOT held by the women who wear the scarves. Isnt it upto them to decide whether wearing such scarves is submission or not, NOT for feminists

The problem is that it is often unclear whether the Scarf is 1) a free choice, 2) a 'free' choice dictated by the circumstances such as by the girls who can only do this not be considered sluts, or 3) something forced upon the girls by their relatives or religious leaders.

Besides, the new feminists in France are not the same as the 70's generation of feminists. They are from the "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" network ("Neither Whores Nor Submitted") and they oppose the general atrocious climate of mysogynia in the ghetto, in which the Scarf takes a part. More than intellectual middle-class women, these new feminists are firsthand concerned, as they struggled their way adainst the "normal" role they should have been attributed as either Sluts or Submitted.

	19-12-2003 22:43									#54
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

lotm, Though I'm not from France, I can't see any problem with people from other countries critisizing laws they don't agree with. The French posters will most likely agree on that one.
I'm torn on this issue, especially since we've had a similar problem in Germany not too long ago: The Federal Constitution Court (not sure on this translation) said that it was ok to forbid teachers to wear headscarfs. I personally tend to see the headscarf as a symbol for women's opression; the fact that it may have been different in the past doesn't change this because things can acquire and change symbolic meanings depending on the way they're used; OTOH, the freedom to express religious opinions is quite an important one.

	19-12-2003 22:44									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse So? Why is it the State's business to interfere with a person's religious beliefs at school?

Because schools are the State's thing, and that the State does the regulation of what expression and clothing is allowed, and what is not?

If I tell you nudists cannot come naked at school, will you whine so much?

	19-12-2003 22:45									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: The argument raised by the partisans of the headscarf is that it is a religious obligation. I have no opinion on that point, but hight muslims authorities contradict it. And considering that the minority making of the headscarf an obligation also claims that the religious laws prevail on the civil laws, it is not without interest to check first if it is really a religious obligation.

What does that matter? As long as some people believe it is part of their religious obligation, who cares what the 'authorities' think? Religious beliefs are highly personal.

quote: Something of no small importance, that gets widely overlooked, is that any obvious sign of political belonging gets banned as well.

That's dumb as well. I have no problem with kids walking around school with Nader or Bush or Gore buttons in the 2000 elections. Why should the French?

quote: Has everybody understood that the headscarf was banned only AT SCHOOL ?. They can wear it the rest of the time and where they want

Yes, it is a restriction on the free exercise of religion while at school, we get it... but it still restricting free exercise of religion, and we see that as intolerant.

	19-12-2003 22:48									#57
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Because schools are the State's thing, and that the State does the regulation of what expression and clothing is allowed, and what is not? If I tell you nudists cannot come naked at school, will you whine so much?

Because nudism is disallowed in public as well.

Deliberately going after political and religious expression is stupid and dangerous.

The State is subsidising the education, not what people are wearing while they get it.

	19-12-2003 22:49									#58
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui What does that matter? As long as some people believe it is part of their religious obligation, who cares what the 'authorities' think? Religious beliefs are highly personal.

When they are displayed that clearly, they are beyond personal. That's precisely the beef, and that's what falls under the law.

	19-12-2003 22:49									#59
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Although if I had my way I'd allow public nudity, with minor exceptions (I don't want to sit on a seat after somebody else has had their bare ass on it, for example).

	19-12-2003 22:52									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: The Federal Constitution Court (not sure on this translation) said that it was ok to forbid teachers to wear headscarfs.

For us, that rule would be no problem, since the teacher is an agent of the state. Depending on the circumstance, wearing a scarf might run afoul of our non-establishment tradition.