Intolerance In France

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

http://english.aljazeera.net/english/Images/hdr_logo.gif

Report outrages France&#39;s Muslims
by
Friday 12 December 2003 2:29 PM GMT


French Muslims say a hijab ban would be discriminatory


French Muslims have reacted with anger to an official report which recommends that Islamic headscarves in schools be banned.



Muslims argued on Friday that they were being targeted by a new tool of discrimination.

Drawn up by a 20-member committee under former minister Bernard Stasi, the secularity commission report was handed over to President Jacques Chirac on Thursday.

The key proposal is that "conspicuous" religious insignia such as headscarves, Jewish skull-caps and "large" crosses be prohibited in the classroom.

Chirac will deliver his verdict on Wednesday, but judging from past pronouncements he seems likely to follow its recommendation to put the ban into law.

Social disharmony

However, Muslims have questioned whether a law aimed primarily at the country&#39;s five million-strong community could do anything to improve social harmony.


Stasi also wants skull-caps and
large crosses banned in schools

The country&#39;s most-visited Islamic Internet site, Oumma.com, issued a blistering rejection of the proposed law, saying it exposed the hypocrisy of a nation supposedly wedded to the principle of free expression.

"What is happening in France? The country that once elevated reason above all other forms of thought is now beating itself into a frenzy.

"How could the nation that forged the rights of man descend to such obscurantism? Our 200 year-old republic is shaken by a piece of clothing," it said.

According to Oumma.com&#39;s editorial director Said Branine, ordinary Muslims who grew up in France feel deeply offended by the Stasi committee&#39;s recommendations.

Archaic France

"This is a law that targets Muslims. Up till recently there were two religions in France. Now there are three, but in typical French fashion the establishment is years, even decades, behind reality.

"France likes to boast of being &#39;exceptional.&#39; It&#39;s rubbish. France is just archaic."

He added: "French Muslims are republicans, democrats, secularists. But we also have our Islamic identity transmitted from our parents. We are not going to give it up. To expect us to is a colonial frame of mind."

"How could the nation that forged the rights of man descend to such obscurantism? Our 200 year-old republic is shaken by a piece of clothing"

Oumma.com editorial

Others warned that a headscarf ban would be self-defeating, encouraging the kind of "extremism" that France is trying to combat.

French establishment

"My fear is that a law would be seen by the most militant part of the Muslim community as a frontal attack against Islam. We would end up with even more headscarf problems than we have now," said sociologist Jean-Yves Camus of the European Research Centre on Racism and Anti-Semitism.

But France&#39;s leading Islamic cleric, the rector of the Paris mosque Dalil Boubakeur, said he would urge Muslims to obey any law, although he suggested a grace period of several months so that families could get used to the new situation.

However, as President Jacques Chirac began deliberating the findings, politicians, religious leaders, teachers and editorialists gave a guarded welcome to Thursday&#39;s ruling.

Most French newspapers applauded what they saw as the reassertion of the country&#39;s secular identity, with the conservative Le Figaro pronouncing it "is not for the republic to adapt to Islam, but for Islam to adapt to the republic".


AFP
By

You can find this article at:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E7B...F3ADDDD487F.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E7BC0591-15BB-4340-937E-7F3ADDDD487F.htm)

[billyfridge]

I&#39;m in full areement with them T Mkr, all religous trappings should be kept out of school and colleges/universities, they should be kept at home or churches etc.
where they belong. <_<

[h1]

If you are banning religious trappings, then you should ban them without discrimation. This not only includes headscarves, small neck-worm duas and burkas, but crosses, yamakas (sp? very sorry if wrong as I am not Jewish), etc.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by haxor41789@18 January 2004 - 01:19
If you are banning religious trappings, then you should ban them without discrimation. This not only includes headscarves, small neck-worm duas and burkas, but crosses, yamakas (sp? very sorry if wrong as I am not Jewish), etc.
They have banned all religious trappings in State schools not just Islamic ones.

However, France is a pretty secular country, so the new rules have little or no impact on non-Muslims. It is still permitted to wear small icons such as crosses, star of David, bracelets etc., as long as they are discrete - i.e. no 6" crosses worn over everday clothing.

Personally, I think it is a mistake. It merely serves to create a trench mentality in the minds of those who are most affected by the ban. In some ways it is a gift to radicals as they struggle to keep their young to stick with these symbols. They can now sell it not as a rather untrendy clinging to the past but rather as a radical political statement of their heritage. Expect more not less headscarves because of this ruling.

[J'Pol]

I cannot see the point of the ban, who do the "trappings" offend and what is it intended to achieve.

My one over-riding rule is that a law should apply to everyone. Without fear or favour.

So if crash helmets are compulsory, then it should be for everyone, whether they wear something else on their head or not. If a photographic driving licence is compulsory, then that is for everyone and matters not a jot whether they want a photograph taken or not.

In these instances it is simple. If you don&#39;t agree you don&#39;t get the licence, not a problem. However it is different for schoolchildren. They must be educated, but the state is forcing them to remove something which is deeply significant to them and their families.

This is not like girls insisting on equal rights to wear trousers ( no offence intended, merely a real life example). This is something which is an integral part of people&#39;s belief system and life. I don&#39;t understand it myself, but I do accept the depth of feeling of people who do.

Unless it is deeply offensive to someone else, I see no point in the ban.

[j2k4]

If the respective banners of the various religions are not soon taken up, all except the secularists will find life nigh unto intolerable.

To shift the focus ever so slightly:

In Chicago, just before Chistmas, a passerby happened to look into the window of a neighborhood firestation and glimpse, deep in the bowels of the building, a Christmas tree and decorations.

A formal complaint forced the immediate and summary removal of the "offending" items. :huh:

[100%]

I find this whole policy offending and unjust
and just as provoking as other topics found in this World of news

Two items on the side
A French friend told me a few years back that French radios must play atleast 75% Fench music.

In some local neighbourhood in the UK the local muslim community complained about a woman who had a hobby of collecting ceramic pig sculptures, which she placed in her window - this was seen as very offensive to the muslim community as they had to pass her house on the way to the nearby mosque.
She removed them from the window but there was ofcourse alot of hubhub

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 January 2004 - 19:57


In Chicago, just before Chistmas, a passerby happened to look into the window of a neighborhood firestation and glimpse, deep in the bowels of the building, a Christmas tree and decorations.

A formal complaint forced the immediate and summary removal of the "offending" items. :huh:
How (or where) did you hear about this, j2?

It has the ring of "urban legend" about it, to me.

[h1]

I totally agree with Biggles and J&#39;Pol.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by clocker+17 January 2004 - 20:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 January 2004 - 20:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 January 2004 - 19:57


In Chicago, just before Chistmas, a passerby happened to look into the window of a neighborhood firestation and glimpse, deep in the bowels of the building, a Christmas tree and decorations.

A formal complaint forced the immediate and summary removal of the "offending" items. :huh:
How (or where) did you hear about this, j2?

It has the ring of "urban legend" about it, to me. [/b][/quote]
i wonder if all the hard feelings that arise from such incidents wouldn&#39;t be sufficiently ironed out by a few more Jesus Day proclamations per year. :)

http://www.snopes.com/religion/jesusday.htm

[MagicNakor]

There always is Hallowitnessing.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+18 January 2004 - 00:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 18 January 2004 - 00:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 January 2004 - 19:57


In Chicago, just before Chistmas, a passerby happened to look into the window of a neighborhood firestation and glimpse, deep in the bowels of the building, a Christmas tree and decorations.

A formal complaint forced the immediate and summary removal of the "offending" items. :huh:
How (or where) did you hear about this, j2?

It has the ring of "urban legend" about it, to me. [/b][/quote]
Try this, Clocker-

http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi

Hope it works, I&#39;m not terrific at this, as well you know.

Edit:

Just discovered the Sun-Times archive has expired.

Here are a couple of other recountings of the story.

CHRISTMAS CENSORS NEUTER A FIREHOUSE: TAKING A PAGE FROM CASTRO&#39;S PLAYBOOK, GLENVIEW ILLINOIS TOWN OFFICIALS ORDER CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS TO BE TAKEN DOWN
12/25/2003 4:04:00 PM - Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Town officials in Glenview, Illinois, a northern Chicago suburb, have ordered all Christmas decorations removed from the inside of a firehouse. Some residents complained that they could see Christmas lights, a Christmas tree and a Santa Claus inside Glenview’s Station No. 7 when they drove down Glenview Road. Village officials declared that they want “to make sure that our public buildings remain neutral.” They pointed out that they also banned a menorah from public property.

Catholic League president William Donohue commented as follows:


“Glenview’s town officials are free to develop their own policies, but no one has to accept their lies. This has nothing to do with remaining neutral-it has everything to do with deliberately seeking to snuff out Christmas. Everyone knows that Christmas lights, Christmas trees and Santa Claus are secular symbols, but because they are obviously associated with a religious holiday, it is enough for those who hate Christianity to ban them. Moreover, to say that the policy is neutral because it also bans menorahs from public property is another lie: a menorah is a religious symbol.


“In Castro’s Cuba, Catholics celebrate Christmas with their curtains drawn. This is exactly what the cultural fascists would like to do in the U.S. It is not sufficient that they avert their eyes when they see something that reminds them of Christmas-now they literally peer in the windows of firehouses in their annual search and destroy operation. And make no mistake about it, all of this is done because they are offended by any reference to Jesus.”


###


The following article by Bill Stotzer appeared in the Sterling Daily Gazette on Christmas Eve, 2003:


THE TRUE MEANING OF CHRISTMAS

by Bill Stotzer


Recently in Glenview, Illinois, the fire department was required by the city to take down a Christmas tree which was put up at the fire house. This pressure came from a fringe element of society and is supported by portions of the legal community to assist them in their goal to take out the religious meaning of the holiday. This position is illogical and inconsistent with our Constitution.


First of all Christmas is a Federally mandated holiday. By DEFINITION, Christmas is a day recognized by Christians as the birth date of their Savior, Jesus Christ. It is so widely recognized that days of vacation are afforded to schools, government employees, and businesses as a matter of fact. It is a time of year that tradition and our culture accepts as a way of life.


Secondly, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees 5 specific fundamental rights, the first of which is freedom of religion(isn’t this a religious holiday?). The opening clause of the Bill of Rights states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or PROHIBITING the free expression thereof. Therefore, it logically follows that the Government( Federal, State, Local) is denying this fundamental right by prohibiting free expression of religious freedom during a federally mandated Christian holiday. Not being able to erect a nativity scene, even on public property, is to deny its citizens a fundamental right of expression guaranteed to them by the Constitution, which clearly allows religious diversity and freedom.


A remark attributed to Thomas Jefferson, “seperation of church and state”, has become a catch phrase used in the ideology of atheists and lawyers to overturn the meaning of the 1st Amendment. But this phrase is not written in the Constitution, and is used by extremists and even the Supreme Court to interpret its meaning. Over 95% of the citizens of this country disagree with their conclusion that it means to deny a reference to God not only at Christmas time but also applies to prayers in schools. Apparently our Senators, Representatives in Congress and even our President violate the law on a daily basis ( which is unreasonable and illogical).


The ACLU , atheists, and others should put up or shut up. They should try to pass legislation to abolish the Federal Holiday, Christmas, or be quiet and allow the majority their freedom of expression and to live in peace.

Sorry to have refuted your urban legend assertion, old buddy. :)

[Wizard_Mon1]

is this subject linked in anyway to the french national party as they were so close to getting into power, do you think this attempt might have been partly thier doing?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@18 January 2004 - 13:29
This has nothing to do with remaining neutral-it has everything to do with deliberately seeking to snuff out Christmas.
oh, dear. is there no end to the madness of those damn grinches. i can only think of one way to combat this-- another simultaneous showing of the white house&#39;s "barney cam" video on the major television networks, next december. that oughta even the odds and put christmas back on top where it belongs.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+18 January 2004 - 18:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 18 January 2004 - 18:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@18 January 2004 - 13:29
This has nothing to do with remaining neutral-it has everything to do with deliberately seeking to snuff out Christmas.
oh, dear. is there no end to the madness of those damn grinches. i can only think of one way to combat this-- another simultaneous showing of the white house&#39;s "barney cam" video on the major television networks, next december. that oughta even the odds and put christmas back on top where it belongs. [/b][/quote]
This is just a bit misleading, as it is a quote from a C&P, and was offered merely as proof the Chicago firehouse story was, in fact, true.

If I had the time, 3RA1N1AC, I would certainly have tried to find a less "rhetorical" version of events, just for you. ;)

EDIT: As the topic was a story from France, I offer my humble apologies for leading the thread astray.

I did not intend to interject any American content into an otherwise worthwhile thread.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@18 January 2004 - 14:32
If I had the time, 3RA1N1AC, I would certainly have tried to find a less "rhetorical" version of events, just for you. ;)
i agree that the official handling of the incident (and others like it) was, shall we say, rather heavy handed and unnecessary. but my contention is that, much more often than not, u.s. gov&#39;t employees (including the president) still do have plenty of freedom in the way of personal expression where it doesn&#39;t equate to an official endorsement of one denomination or another. i think a schoolteacher devoting time from the educational clock to involve students in religious observances, or a judge erecting a religious monument in the middle of a courthouse, is a different matter from some regular joes decorating a firehouse.

as for france... i don&#39;t feel it&#39;s my place to comment on france. :lol:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@18 January 2004 - 23:12
is this subject linked in anyway to the french national party as they were so close to getting into power, do you think this attempt might have been partly thier doing?
I hadn&#39;t thought of that and am not sure if there is any truth in the suggestion.

However it is a very good point.

Who know what Machiavellian plots and deals go on behind the scenes. Other than the Machiavellian plotters obviously.

This may well form part of a much larger picture and their support ,or at least lack of opposition may be required re other things.

Good lateral effort that man.

[Biggles]

This is just a bit misleading, as it is a quote from a C&P, and was offered merely as proof the Chicago firehouse story was, in fact, true.

If I had the time, 3RA1N1AC, I would certainly have tried to find a less "rhetorical" version of events, just for you. ;)


The only case of Christmas tree removal I can recall in recent years on this side of the pond was by a Wee Free Minister. It wasn&#39;t one of them visiting relations in the US perchance?


Wee Frees have a rather strict take on all matters Biblical and as far as they are concerned there is no birth date given and therfore no birthday. Furthemore, Celtic trappings like trees and Yule logs are right out&#33; I believe they prefer to observe the day with a little cold porridge and several hours contemplating the perils of damnation. I believe technically they are correct but it seems a tad cheerless to me.

Apologies for perpetuating this diversion

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@18 January 2004 - 21:35
Apologies for perpetuating this diversion
You&#39;re such a spammer&#33; :)

I&#39;m reasonably sure you don&#39;t live in France, either; double trouble for you. ;)

[lynx]

Originally posted by Zedaxax@18 January 2004 - 03:32
In some local neighbourhood in the UK the local muslim community complained about a woman who had a hobby of collecting ceramic pig sculptures, which she placed in her window - this was seen as very offensive to the muslim community as they had to pass her house on the way to the nearby mosque.
She removed them from the window but there was ofcourse alot of hubhub
You call having her house firebombed until she left "a lot of hubbub"?
Call it what it is - religious intolerance from those who complain most about religious intolerance.

France has had a policy of secularisation of education since Napoleonic times, the new laws merely restate the existing situation to make sure the position is clear. Not only that, if you disregard the fact that the hijab is worn for religious reasons they would still not be acceptable, in exactly the same way that wearing baseball caps would not be acceptable.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by lynx@19 January 2004 - 14:50
Not only that, if you disregard the fact that the hijab is worn for religious reasons they would still not be acceptable, in exactly the same way that wearing baseball caps would not be acceptable.
To disregard the reason for the article being worn is ludicrous. That is the whole point of the discussion. Otherwise we would only be discussing dress codes and to use your own example baseball caps being worn in school.

To liken it to wearing a baseball cap is both preposterous and offensive. As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of it&#39;s significance, however I accept that it is a genuinely important part of their religious beliefs.

As such just to ban it is harsh and insensitive, unless someone else has a reason for that ban. Then a balance and compromise must be found. I don&#39;t think that is the case here, there is no suggestion of complaints from other pupils or parents, or have I missed that.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+19 January 2004 - 18:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 19 January 2004 - 18:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@19 January 2004 - 14:50
Not only that, if you disregard the fact that the hijab is worn for religious reasons they would still not be acceptable, in exactly the same way that wearing baseball caps would not be acceptable.
To disregard the reason for the article being worn is ludicrous. That is the whole point of the discussion. Otherwise we would only be discussing dress codes and to use your own example baseball caps being worn in school.

To liken it to wearing a baseball cap is both preposterous and offensive. As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of it&#39;s significance, however I accept that it is a genuinely important part of their religious beliefs.

As such just to ban it is harsh and insensitive, unless someone else has a reason for that ban. Then a balance and compromise must be found. I don&#39;t think that is the case here, there is no suggestion of complaints from other pupils or parents, or have I missed that. [/b][/quote]
I take it you would have no difficulty with a Japanese (or other) student of Samurai..(which is a form of Buddism with strong Shintoism influence) carrying his sword then?

The sword is linked to the soul in this faith, which is a stronger link to their belief/religion than skull caps, scarfs and crucifixes i would think....

Playing devils advocate here btw..

In my view, if it does no harm then let it be.

Skull Caps, Skarves, Crucifixes...so what? Let people wear them, they have a right to their beliefs and a right to free expression under EU law I believe, so France may not be able to implement these proposals anyway.

The Sword thing...maybe not a good idea :P

[Guillaume]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@19 January 2004 - 18:06
As such just to ban it is harsh and insensitive, unless someone else has a reason for that ban. Then a balance and compromise must be found. I don&#39;t think that is the case here, there is no suggestion of complaints from other pupils or parents, or have I missed that.
No, no complaints from parents or pupils, just from teachers and headmasters...

See, as Lynx said, there is a tradition of secularism in France&#39;s educational system. In fact there already is a law guaranteing (spelling?) this. It is a clause in the law of 1905 which officially separates Church and State.

That clause has been ignored many times over the years, leading to a tense situation with the more traditionalist religious groups. This "new" law is only a "reminder" of the previous one.

The compromise is: all religions are to be kept out of public schools and administrations, not only Islam.

[J'Pol]

RF

Does he have a rule that he must carry it at all times when in public ?

If so I would have to consider the views and genuine concerns of all interested parties.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@19 January 2004 - 18:30
RF

Does he have a rule that he must carry it at all times when in public ?

If so I would have to consider the views and genuine concerns of all interested parties.
Irrespective of whether that is the rule, the carrying of such a weapon would break State Laws.....and I do not believe in the right of any religion to break the laws of the country in which the followers of that religion have decided to settle.

It is upto the settlers to make sure that they can adapt to where they want to live, not the hosting country to change its laws to accomodate the religion.

If we dont have this:

Well there are "Religions" where cannabalism is acceptable...so that guy in Germany shouldnt be getting arrested ;)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Gurahl+19 January 2004 - 19:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gurahl @ 19 January 2004 - 19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@19 January 2004 - 18:06
As such just to ban it is harsh and insensitive, unless someone else has a reason for that ban. Then a balance and compromise must be found. I don&#39;t think that is the case here, there is no suggestion of complaints from other pupils or parents, or have I missed that.
No, no complaints from parents or pupils, just from teachers and headmasters...

See, as Lynx said, there is a tradition of secularism in France&#39;s educational system. In fact there already is a law guaranteing (spelling?) this. It is a clause in the law of 1905 which officially separates Church and State.

That clause has been ignored many times over the years, leading to a tense situation with the more traditionalist religious groups. This "new" law is only a "reminder" of the previous one.

The compromise is: all religions are to be kept out of public schools and administrations, not only Islam. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t believe anyone is proposing teaching religion, merely wearing something which is significant to them.

If there have been no complaints then I don&#39;t see the issue. I prefer it when a state is able to adapt to circumstances and see that sometimes change is a good thing. I am sure the demographic has changed significantly since 1905.

I have no particular axe to grind. It is not something that affects me in any way. I just prefer to see religious tolerance (other than rangers supporters obviously).

If the people of France are happy with the situation it is a matter for them. In my view it does not portray you in a particularly good light. However given recent political events in France it is not that surprising.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+19 January 2004 - 19:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 19 January 2004 - 19:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@19 January 2004 - 18:30
RF

Does he have a rule that he must carry it at all times when in public ?

If so I would have to consider the views and genuine concerns of all interested parties.
Irrespective of whether that is the rule, the carrying of such a weapon would break State Laws.....and I do not believe in the right of any religion to break the laws of the country in which the followers of that religion have decided to settle.

It is upto the settlers to make sure that they can adapt to where they want to live, not the hosting country to change its laws to accomodate the religion.

If we dont have this:

Well there are "Religions" where cannabalism is acceptable...so that guy in Germany shouldnt be getting arrested ;) [/b][/quote]
I think you will find, though I am not sure, that when in full Highland dress a Scotsman can carry a fairly substantial and sharp knife, known as a Skean Dhu.

Please see my earlier (and other threads) position re photographic driving licences, wearing crash helmets etc. In these circumstances - don&#39;t comply don&#39;t get the licence - don&#39;t drive the car / bike. I think we agree on that.

I think this is different as educating children is not an optional thing. It is a basic human right in my opinion, so the argument is not as clean cut as the other things.

I only ask that France show a little tolerance, if they are not able then as I said a few moments ago, that reflect badly on them.

There may also be ECHR issues, I haven&#39;t checked that.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@19 January 2004 - 19:27

I take it you would have no difficulty with a Japanese (or other) student of Samurai..(which is a form of Buddism with strong Shintoism influence) carrying his sword then?

The sword is linked to the soul in this faith, which is a stronger link to their belief/religion than skull caps, scarfs and crucifixes i would think....

The Sword thing...maybe not a good idea :P
Why not let them bring swords to school? This is just ridiculous&#33;

We allow students to carry "pens", do we not, which we all agree are mightier than the sword.

en garde&#33;






I&#39;ll get me purse. <_<

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@19 January 2004 - 18:46


There may also be ECHR issues, I haven&#39;t checked that.
As this was the whole basis of the UKs marvelous "Human Rights Act" which includes a freedom of expression clause that has caused most school Heads nightmares...I believe they will be unable to implement their proposals under EU Law.

However, when i say this you must understand that we are talking about France. They break EU regulations when it suits them (Remember their illegal banning of British Beef?) and point to the moral highground and International Law when it suits them otherwise.

In other words, France will do what France wants and stuff anyone else :)

[Guillaume]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@19 January 2004 - 18:39
I just prefer to see religious tolerance (other than rangers supporters obviously).
Lack of religious tolerance would be to try to ban Islam or Judaism or Buddhism or whatever religion, just as Protestantism was in the Renaissance period, which is not the case here...

[clocker]

Many school districts here in the US have adopted dress codes ( including many schools that I pass during my daily peregrinations), primarily I believe, to sidestep tricky issues of modesty and gang affiliation. Here in Jefferson County ( home of the infamous Columbine HS), the dress code bans all headware.
I don&#39;t recall there being much brouhaha raised when this was implemented, in fact, the general sense that I got was a major sigh of relief from parents as "keeping up with the Jones&#39;s" ( or, more likely,"dressing like Britney") was no longer an issue.
I&#39;m not sure if there is a religious exemption from this code, I suspect not...I don&#39;t remember seeing any yamulkas (sp?) or Amish bonnets or Islamic headscarves on the playgrounds, but, then again, a person my age hanging around schoolyards would be promptly arrested, so my observations are only casual.
Personally, I don&#39;t see what the big deal is.
Aren&#39;t Muslims supposed to pray, facing Mecca, like six times a day also?
Should public schools also accomodate this?

[Wizard_Mon1]

In terms of the head coverings i don&#39;t think it is neccesary to ban them they affect know one except people who will not tolerate &#39;others&#39;.

[lynx]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+19 January 2004 - 17:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 19 January 2004 - 17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@19 January 2004 - 14:50
Not only that, if you disregard the fact that the hijab is worn for religious reasons they would still not be acceptable, in exactly the same way that wearing baseball caps would not be acceptable.
To disregard the reason for the article being worn is ludicrous. That is the whole point of the discussion. Otherwise we would only be discussing dress codes and to use your own example baseball caps being worn in school.

To liken it to wearing a baseball cap is both preposterous and offensive. As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of it&#39;s significance, however I accept that it is a genuinely important part of their religious beliefs.

As such just to ban it is harsh and insensitive, unless someone else has a reason for that ban. Then a balance and compromise must be found. I don&#39;t think that is the case here, there is no suggestion of complaints from other pupils or parents, or have I missed that. [/b][/quote]
You have (deliberately?) misinterpreted my statement and your comments twist it&#39;s meaning. The use of the word &#39;if&#39; means to examine a possibility which is not the case. I did not liken the hajib to a baseball cap, I merely pointed out that it would be equally unacceptable as headgear, much as Clocker has stated is the case in many American schools.

It is hardly ludicrous to disregard the religious issue, if the headgear would be unacceptable without it. It is irrational to permit a mode of dress simply because of a religious desire. As with the Samurai sword, if it is unacceptable without religious grounds there is no reason to permit on a religious pretext.

Had this issue been directed solely at Muslims I could understand their displeasure, but it applies to all religions. I believe that the act has been restated to emphasise that this sort of display of religious fervour has not been acceptible in French schools for a long time, and they are not about to bend the rules just for one religion.

Many Muslim women do not feel the need to wear any form of headgear, and there is a worry that some parents are ordering their daughters to wear the hajib as an overt expresssion of their Muslim faith. This is exactly what is prohibited in French schools. However, I accept that many are wearing them of their own wishes.

I believe there is an option available, namely to start their own private schools and withdraw their children from the state system, but of course the costs may make this prohibitive.

[J'Pol]

It is indeed ludicrous, given that it is worn for entirely religious reasons. So to disregard it&#39;s religious significance is to totally miss the point. In fact, as I understand it the ban is exactly because of it&#39;s religious significance.

Circular argument I&#39;m afraid. If you remove the religious aspect, the ban is no longer appropriate and therefore no ban.

However my point remains that (in my opinion) we should adapt to a changing world. If the French chose not to do that and in the process alienate children from their own society that is a matter for them.

I simply think it strikes of religious intolerance, with no-one actually having any complaint, other than the state itself. I honestly feel that, before something is banned there should be a reason for it. Someone should be hurt or offended.

This is a total removal of freedom of expression, just as not allowing someone the right to express themselves in words is. We burn books yet again, or at least they do.

[lynx]

On the contrary, assuming that France has similar dress codes in its schools as the rest of us, the hajib would still be banned even if it was not seen as a religious artifact. What is ludicrous is when exceptions are made to a standard dress code to permit excessive religious expression.

If we are to make exceptions on religious grounds, it is equally justifiable to say we should make exceptions on sporting grounds and permit the baseball cap. After all, it is merely freedom of expression, or are you claiming that only religious exceptions are valid?

If (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=if) we were to follow your line of argument then we should also permit the Samurai sword. Or is that not permissible in your eyes, in which case perhaps you would explain at what point things become unacceptable, and who decides? And if it is a matter of there being a complaint, how do you know that there have been no complaints? How many do there have to be, or is a single complaint enough?

Far from burning books, these laws are making sure that the books remain in their proper place, and are not used to batter into submission those who do not wish to read certain volumes.

[billyfridge]

On my council estate in UK i live amongs a number of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi families. i assume most, if not all, are, Muslims. i see them every day
going about their normal business, school, work etc, they all wear the same type clothing as we do, except the elderly ones they always wear traditional clothing.
On certain days, they all wear traditional clothes. possibly their equivalent to our
sunday. it&#39;s not a problem, except to the racists.
as for the long black dresses and headscarves being worn all the time the old ones
probably would feel undressed in anything else but i suspect the young ones would rather wear miniskirts and show bare midriffs like our teenagers.
given a few years the old mode of dress will die out when the youngsters take control of their own lives and become westernised.
my point is leave them alone. they can&#39;t possibly be doing any harm.

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@19 January 2004 - 15:50


However my point remains that (in my opinion) we should adapt to a changing world.
And how much adapting do you require from the Muslims?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+20 January 2004 - 05:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 20 January 2004 - 05:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@19 January 2004 - 15:50


However my point remains that (in my opinion) we should adapt to a changing world.
And how much adapting do you require from the Muslims?[/b][/quote]
They form an integral part of the society. Therefore I expect them to adapt in the same way as everybody else.

I see no reason to specify how much each individual group needs to adapt. We all must adapt.