Whattya think of the French now?

[Purrybonker]

You probably noticed that the French legislature passed a law yesterday banning all religious symbols from their public school system. This means no head scarfs, yamulkes, turbans or even crosses for that matter. The law passed overwhelmingly - a vote count of something like 494-50.

I'm not sure what to make of this - whether to be appalled at their lack of tolerance or to applaud the French for being progressive in eliminating possible foundations for prejudice and clashes of culture within their public system.

Apparently the law is based on French Napoleanic foundations of a secular republican state. I can see how this law plays to that foundation, but I guess I'm taken aback somewhat by how extreme the law seems to be. Of course the law has to pass through their judicial system at some point - presumably when someone choses to challenge it.

I have to admit that I chuckled a bit at the seemingly silliness of that removal of that ten-commandments statue (or whatever it was) from that legislative building in Georgia (I probably have the state wrong, too. Sorry about that if I missed badly on this one) last year. I wasn't sure what to make of that event, either.

But the French now seem to have taken this "secular public domain" thing one huge step further.

How do you guys react to this whole thing?

[Jim Richards]

It's their country...they can run it as they wish. Purry, you sure get wrapped around the axle about what goes on in other countries. I guess Canada is PERFECT, eh?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Purry -
Actually, I applaud the French sticking to their principles on this one. This has been a tenet of French socio-political life since the founding of the Republic -- and I don't think it's a relic or a dinosaur of an idea. The law doesn't single out Muslims, it applies to indicia of all religions (if I understand it correctly).

The reason this is a big issue, IMHO, is because it directly affects Muslims, who are very used to pressuring their ideological opponents in their host democratic countries with cries of prejudice, new crusade, etc. Essentially, wanting to enjoy the opportunities of democracy w/o having to play by the host's other, dispassionately applied rules.

Look, for example, at the ability of CAIR and other Islamic-interest groups in the US. Many of these groups (not most, perhaps, but many) of them are thinly-veiled funding organizations for the Islamofascists and terrorists. However, they scream bloody murder if someone has something critical to say (factual, empirical, and/or political) about Islam, fundamentalism or even Islamic terrorism -- and people cave in to the ridiculous protests!

A petty but telling example is when the movie The Sum of All Fears was going into production -- in the book, the terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists. Not a terrible stretch of the imagination. CAIR launched a propaganda campaign and threatened the producers with all sorts of nasty consequences and "production complications" (my words, not theirs) unless the producers changed the evildoers from radical Muslims to ... well, something else... and hey, aren't neo-Nazi white supremacists an easy target?

So, I'm for France sticking up for a fundamental principle of its government and society. The law applies equally to Jews (no head coverings) Muslims (no head coverings) and Christians (no "large" crosses). The non-PC side of me observes that it seems that many Muslims really look for reasons to get all self-rightous, pissed off and march in the streets.

JP

[joeclarke]

It's their country...they can run it as they wish. Purry, you sure get wrapped around the axle about what goes on in other countries. I guess Canada is PERFECT, eh?

Wow, now that's an intelligent response. I stand in awe of your intellect...

sheesh, whatta cranky crowd.

[Decolliber]

Woman marries dead boyfriend
February 11, 2004 - 9:02AM

A 35-year-old Frenchwoman became both bride and widow when she married her dead boyfriend, in an exchange of vows that required authorisation from the French president.
The ceremony was performed at Nice City Hall on the French Riviera.
The deceased groom, a former policeman identified as Eric, was not present at the ceremony. He was killed by a drunk driver in September 2002.
Demichel told LCI television she was fully aware that "it could seem shocking to marry someone who is dead", but said that her fiance's absence from her life had not dimmed her feelings for him.
According to French law, a marriage between a living person and a dead person can take place as long as preliminary civic formalities have been completed that show the couple had planned to marry. Before the ceremony can take place, it must be approved by the French president.

AP

[Decolliber]

Seriously, I think what the French are doing on this is reasonable, in a society that wants to maintain secular values. Similar cases have occurred in the US., including one where Arab women were denied driving licenses (in Florida I think) becuase they refused to remove their burkhas. The rationale was different though: it was that a driving license photo is an important form of ID for law enforcement.
Part of the French policy is also political, of course. Arabs are an increasingly large (and poor, and violent) minority in the French population, and one of the sources of resurgent anti-Semetism in France.
And also keep in mind that French political culture has a long tradition of endorsing a strong state with far more authority over individual liberties than Americans would tolerate.

[dd74]

French Napoleonic law, eh? And didn't Napoleon crown himself "Emperor?"

Increasingly, I have less personal problems with religious symbols in public places. I just ignore them. But the symbolism of church and state mixing with one another can be troublesome, at least in the U.S. As far as I can see with France, it might be slightly different. Two prevailing issues come to mind:

1) The outstanding reason this legislature was passed had to do with girls wearing Muslim headresses in the French schools - scarves and such. Crosses, the Star of David, etc., were lumped in there to show fairness.

2) This was also done to give a message to the world that France isn't a country that favors a faith that is so closely tied with today's terrorism. Again, all other faiths were conveniently thrown into the mix.

BTW: Alabama was the state where the 10 Commandments were removed from the state house.

[joeclarke]

But the symbolism of church and state mixing with one another can be troublesome, at least in the U.S.

Don't tell that to George, the only thing keeping him afloat in the polls at all these days is his consistent invocation of God as being behind everything and anything America chooses to do.

[dd74]

Originally posted by joeclarke
Don't tell that to George, the only thing keeping him afloat in the polls at all these days is his consistent invocation of God as being behind everything and anything America chooses to do.

I'm not so sure about that. He's been getting heat from the far right-religious segment since his S of U speech. Don't know why, though.

[Purrybonker]

JP - I like your take on this, thanks for your observations. I expect that Decolliber and dd74 are on to something about Islam being the catalyst. That perspective makes this progressive, I guess.

[Aurel]

I am actually very proud of this courageaous measure passed by the french, which reafirms the values of laicity and separation of religion and government.

I agree with dd74 that this measure is mostly targeted at muslim headscarves, and I would like to explain why muslim headscraves are contrary to the values of most civilized western countries.

Every religious custom very often has a practical origin and served a specific purpose at a given time. Headscarves, and the full coverage of women, were intended to protect them from the view of men, just like one would put a cover on his porsche.
In a machist society were women are possessions, the scarf was a way for men to protect their possession from the lust of other men who, like animals, cannot control themsleves at the vue of beauty.

The acceptance of the scarf by women is a sign of submission to men, and most modern women tend to get away from that, if they are given the choice.

In my view, the muslim scarf is insulting not only for women, because it forces them to hide thier beauty, but it is also insulting to men, because it assimilates to beasts who cannot behave as gentlemen with women.

The headscarf is an obsolete religious sign that modern muslims are being encouraged to give up in public places by the french. I think this is the message being sent by this new law.

Aurel

[Moneyguy1]

Well, it has been said that Islam stopped developing somewhere about the eleventh century......

[Aurel]

The idea behind the scarf is that looking at another woman that your wife is a sin. Lust is sin. This very concept is part of most religions, and is very wrong. Beauty should not be hidden, women love to be appreciated for it. Sometimes, I feel like religions are only source of conflicts and culpability, with the idea of sin. God certainly did not want all of that.

Aurel

[Aurel]

Something I cannot understand with the muslims is polygamy: statistically, there are half men and half women. Therefore, if some men can have several women, others will end up being screwed, so to speak. Unless they share them ? So, in this system, poor young men end up being very frustrated. Hence to need of covering women, to hide from young men their source of frustration. And this can also explain why, when promised 77 virgins in the afterlife, some do not hesitate to blow themseves up. So, by trying to uncover the beauty of muslim women, the french want to make young muslim men get busy with them, and stop thinking about the 77 ones when they drive that plane in a tower. See how WE fight the war on terror ?

Aurel

[dd74]

Originally posted by Aurel
The idea behind the scarf is that looking at another woman that your wife is a sin. Lust is sin. This very concept is part of most religions, and is very wrong. Beauty should not be hidden, women love to be appreciated for it. Sometimes, I feel like religions are only source of conflicts and culpability, with the idea of sin. God certainly did not want all of that.

Aurel

Well said, Aurel. I think you hit it on the head.

But do you think the French truly want to, in a way, emasculate religion for the greater populace? Whether it's for this reason or a more shallow effort toward appeasing world view in concentrating its efforts on Muslims, my thought is the government is nonetheless imposing its authority on religion, and with that, not truly separating church and state.

[lendaddy]

Although I am not a religious person myself, I realize I live in a country based in Christian Beliefs. Read the Constitution and founding documents, they riddled with the stuff. This separation of church and state thing has gotten way outta hand! AFWIW thats not what it says, it effectively says that we will not have a government mandated relgion. Big difference. This issue is just weird to me, such anger.


If the founders intended total separtation don't ya think they would have said "hey wait a minute guys we mention God like 3,000 times in these official documents" during a proof read?

[dd74]

Originally posted by Aurel
Something I cannot understand with the muslims is polygamy: statistically, there are half men and half women. Therefore, if some men can have several women, others will end up being screwed, so to speak. Unless they share them ? So, in this system, poor young men end up being very frustrated. Hence to need of covering women, to hide from young men their source of frustration. And this can also explain why, when promised 77 virgins in the afterlife, some do not hesitate to blow themseves up. So, by trying to uncover the beauty of muslim women, the french want to make young muslim men get busy with them, and stop thinking about the 77 ones when they drive that plane in a tower. See how WE fight the war on terror ?

Aurel

Hmmm...a bit of a stretch.

Here's how I see it: by far some of the most gorgeous women in the world come from the Middle East. Dark skinned, dark hair, haunting eyes, beautifully etched cheekbones and shapely mouths. Just gorgeous.

And the men - hands down ugly.

Now as far as men-to-women ratios, I don't know anything about that. But I've heard if a guy wants "action," and doesn't mind travelling half the world, Iran is the place to go. It's population is one of the youngest in the world, and is in sore need of men, since so many were killed during the Iran-Iraq war and other "events" of murderous/wartime/suicidal macho man gallivanting.

Plus, in Iran, there's bucko bucks. Rich sugar mamas looking for male company, perhaps?

Hmmm...I should start a U.S.-Iran dating service. If I only learned Farsi when I had the opportunity...

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Although I am not a religious person myself, I realize I live in a country based in Christian Beliefs. Read the Constitution and founding documents, they riddled with the stuff. This separation of church and state thing has gotten way outta hand! AFWIW thats not what it says, it effectively says that we will not have a government mandated relgion. Big difference. This issue is just weird to me, such anger.


If the founders intended total separtation don't ya think they would have said "hey wait a minute guys we mention God like 3,000 times in these official documents" during a proof read?

Good point. But isn't Christianity our government-mandated religion?

Or better yet, what do you think would happen if Bush ended his S of U and other speeches with, "Allah Bless America?"

How about this? If Bush were Muslim, would 9/11 still have occurred?

[lendaddy]

"Good point. But isn't Christianity our government-mandated religion?"

I wouldn't say mandated but yes it is the base of our system. And I can assure you Allah was not the "god" our founders were referring to

[surflvr911sc]

The Constitution says God, not Jesus, there is a big difference.

The only difference between God and Allah is who says it.