Those Whacked-Out French are at it again!

[Pov]

http://www.iht.com/articles/121861.html

I'm surprised no one here has commented on this yet. French President Chirac has proposed a law banning the wearing of religious attire and objects, such as jewish skull caps (yarmulkes), Islamic headresses and crosses in French public schools.

I find this discriminatory and deeply offensive. Orthodox jewish men are required to wear yarmulkes at all times, and the same is true of observant muslim women and their head scarves. So the law would force muslim and jewish parents to choose between observing their religion and sending their kids to school.

He is also banning the wearing of "large" crosses. Small crosses are OK. My understanding is that wearing a cross, although a symbol of one's devotion, is not a religious requirement. So the majority of the French population is barely affected, only certain religious minorities.

The article also says that Chirac wants to permit businesses to institute the same bans. I guess the next step after that would be banning the wearing of any religious attire in public, and then may be banning the practice Judaism and Islam altogether.

Thank G-d for the First Amendment!

[A rope leash]

France is a secular state. Religion is the single most divisive force on the planet. France does not have a lot of land, but they have a lot of diverisity among the population. I see this as an effort to hold down the conflicts between various religions by homogenizing public dress.

It's not like he's asking them to wear uniforms. He's just asking that religion be kept private: in the church, mosque, synagogue, or home. I don't think it's such a great idea, but I see where it's coming from. I don't think it's about supressing a particular religion, it's about keeping peace between religions.

How can I hate you if I don't know what you are?

[Pov]

France is a secular state. Religion is the single most divisive force on the planet. France does not have a lot of land, but they have a lot of diverisity among the population. I see this as an effort to hold down the conflicts between various religions by homogenizing public dress.

It's not like he's asking them to wear uniforms. He's just asking that religion be kept private: in the church, mosque, synagogue, or home. I don't think it's such a great idea, but I see where it's coming from. I don't think it's about supressing a particular religion, it's about keeping peace between religions.

How can I hate you if I don't know what you are?

So, if your religion requires you to wear a skull cap, or a head scarf, or a turban or whatever, you're just sh*t outta luck if you want to go to school or get a job? Sorry, but this is all about suppressing religious practices of certain groups, but not others. The motives may be benign, but they are utterly irrelevant, IMHO. It's discrimination pure and simple.

You want to try holding down conflicts between different religions, how about trying to use the schools to promote understanding and tolerance? This is just going to further radicalize the affected groups.

[noiseradio]

Yarmulkas and other religious coverings should be allowed. Banning these very basic forms of religious expression will just make tensions run higher. I agree with POV.

[BlueChair]

There is a difference between secular and opressive.

Secular means that religious tradition should not be forced in schools or places like that. For example, you should not force the children to pray to a God they don't necessarily feel exists.

On the other hand, you should be able to comply with the laws of your religion without being told that it is wrong to do so.

[selfmademug]

I also agree with POV. Chirac ain't no Francois Mitterand, is he? What a boneheaded policy.... I can't imagine the French left will stand for that.

[A rope leash]

As I said, I don't think it's all that great an idea, but I can see where Chirac is coming from.

In France, you're a Frenchman first, then a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever.

I think they should make everybody switch religions once in a while, just to make a point. I don't see how it's discriminatory if the law applies to all religions. Just because some religions are more "noticable" in their traditions, doesn't mean their rights are being trampled. Personally, I think having them remove the turban or whatever might show them that they are human first, Jew or Muslim or whatever second.

Now, shall we let little white supremists wear swazitkas, or KKK emblems? How about little communists? Shall they get to wear moon and star? Probably not, but you say religion is different than politics? Religion is politics, my friends, and you can't say it isn't a major influence on people's political views..

Almost all religions imply to a certian extent that other religions are "incorrect". Logically, if one religion is different from another, then both are suspect, in terms of validity. People tend to fight about these things. Chirac's goal is to keep the peace, but of course, everyone will whine about how their particular system of belief is being desecrated, and even more animosity will be created.

As per usual...

[noiseradio]

But I teach in a public high school in a suburban area of Dallas, Texas. We have a substantial Muslim and Jewish population (as well as a decent Buddhist and Hindu contingent). Obviously, the majority of students are some denomination or another of Christian. We let students observe the religion of their choice, and there's honestly no real tension. I have students who pray 5 times a day, and they get to leave class to do it, and no one minds. I have students who object to "under God" being in the pledge who dan't stand to say it, and no one gives them a hard time. I think this age of kid is actually pretty open minded. But I know for certain: start telling them to leave their yarmulkas, birkas, crosses, and bindis at home, and it would be a mess.

[selfmademug]

oh, Ropey, Ropey, Ropey. *shakes head* I will let someone else point out the holes in your logic. You're quite a relativist, you know? The mistake is in thinking that relativism is neutral; it's the just the opposite. It says all things are the same in the end, and that denies a lot of truths. It's dangerous stuff, the crack cocaine of philosophy. Nothing personal but it's getting under my skin...

Why I am on all the political threads all of a sudden? Must be some vitamin I'm not getting in my diet....

[Lipstick]

What amazes me is the amount of anti-semitism still at play in much of Europe. It's as though many people did not learn anything from the horrors of the concentration camps.

Some did, to be fair. The memorial behind Notre Dame cathedral is powerful; frightening and heart wrenching at the same time.

I remember reading of attacks on several synagogues in small towns in France that were going basically unpunished, and an elderly Jewish couple that was beaten to death in 2002.

So, why is the religious covering to be treated differently than a scarf or a toboggan?

[A rope leash]

AH! It's been so long since I've earned a response from Ms Made.

What's the opposite of neutral?

Does this mean Chirac is a faulty thinker, as well? It's hard to have one's thinking associated with that of a cokehead, especially since I'm way more of hemp guy. That aside, I'll look into your philisophical critque and get back to you. You may well be on to something that will save my intellectual career. *waits a second, rolls eyes*

While we do have relgious symbolism and peace living together side by side here in America, I think we must recognize that Europe is a different place. The Middle East is also a very different place, where you can get in trouble for NOT wearing the religious outfit. France is kind of in the middle, and much closer to to the realities of religious extremism than we are here in the USA.

When we think about it in terms of damage reduction, we can see that being subtle in one's religion can only be of benefit. There's an interesting parallel here if we compare it to race relations. If we couldn't see a person's ethnicity, it would be much harder to discriminate against that person. We can see this in episodes of past history, when some blacks in the USA "passed" for white, and got to enjoy the various inequities associated with the caucaision class.

So, as I say, if you don't know me, you can't hate me, or prejudge me, or discriminate against me. I think Chirac's idea is geared more toward preventing discrimination than it is about promoting discrimination. In the everyday world, people are judged by their appearance, and if someone is out to attack you and your religion with violent force or covert prejudice, then you are safer if you do not wear a bulls-eye.

I'd have to say it's a good idea that just won't work. It's way too far ahead of it's time.

[Copenhagen Fan]

A very interesting topic which is also relevant in Denmark at the present time. The largest Danish food store chain has just said that Muslims may not cover their hair with a shroud on the job. This decision was upheld by the courts! This was done because it was feared and suspected that customers where offended and switched lines in order to avoid being serviced by the Muslim employee. How crappy!

A question....what is the policy in the US right now...??? People can wear their own religious clothing at work, right?

ROPE....I don't like your Frenchman first, religious being second, as a person's religion can be a huge part of their social identity, and then it allows the French to categorize the "others"....this is the gig in Denmark...not cool at all because you can't take away people's belief system or force them to integrate. On the other hand I agree with you that if it covers ALL religions, then it is fair enough. By the way, I'm an ex Catholic agnostic, and do not support religion in any way! But would not dictate what others believe in...as long as they leave me in peace....too bad they rarely do that!

[noiseradio]

The policy in most places, as I understand it, in the US is:

If it's not a government job or a job that requires a uniform, most religious expressions are ok. A cop can't add a cross pin to his uniform, and a teacher in a public school can't walk around with an "I Love Jesus, Yes I do" shirt. There is some flexibility on that last one in certain school districts, but that's as a general rule. All of that is for employees. Students can wear religious garb all they want, with very few exceptions.

[A rope leash]

However sensitive a person's religion is to the individual, and however that individual prioritizes his loyalties is up to that individual. That said, if you live in France, you are a French subject, and subject to French law as the primary enforcable code. No matter how a French person sees himself, in the eyes of the French government he is French first, whatever else is next.

Like most governments, they have an interest in protecting their citizens, and protecting themselves. Nothing in the offical real world is above the law of a soveriegn nation, and if you believe that your religion has more authority than the controlling government of your nation, then you might try setting up your own little State of Whatever, and see how the controlling government responds to it.

"Secular" means "apart from the clergy". It excludes the code of the supernatural, and bases decisions on the realities of trying to get along here on Planet 3 Sol System. If you want to live in a religious state, there are a few of those left.

Large cities that have a lot of religious diversity can get along fine with free religious expression. Noise mentions his school and town of Dallas, TX. That's a big city with a lot of different religions that are active, so anyone should feel comfortable walking about in whatever faithwear they wish.

But what about the little place where I live? For years there was a notch cut out of the corner of my school dictrict, where some black folk lived. They went to the larger school in the bigger town many miles away. It was unsaid protection for them from redneck farm boys that didn't know no different. To this day, in my school district, someone wearing a turbin would be subject to overt, covert, and subconscious discrimination.

That's just how whitey is around here, boy!

[Pov]

On the other hand I agree with you that if it covers ALL religions, then it is fair enough.

But it doesn't, and therefore it reeks of hypocrisy. The skull cap and the head scarve are REQUIRED dress in the Judaism and Islam, respectively. The cross is not required garb in Christian religions. Thus, the law would discrminate against those religions that require their adherents to wear symbols of their faith. Not surprisingly, Catholics, the major religious group in France, would barely be inconvenienced.

[selfmademug]

Rope, if have an 'intellectual career,' you are WAY ahead of me! I agree with most of what you've said, but POV's point is the pertinent one, and yes, Chirac is an ass not to see it: he is asking people to choose between their religion and the law, because following the law will, in their belief, send them to their own hell. That was my point about neutrality-- the policy is discriminatory and divisive because a policy of requiring religious-'neutral' garb is a whole different ball of fish from one faith to another. So the neutrality is an illusion.

By the way I am an ex-Catholic athiest!

[A rope leash]

I have a small side-career as a "pretentious" intellectual on an obscure rock star fan message board. It's all a part of the Hungry Ego.

I admit to not seeing Pov's point about the varying requirements regarding faith fashions. It's very hard for me to see how attire can have so much importance, but I guess it does.

What we need is a religion that requires nudity.

Ach! It's nuthin' more than what the good Lord gave me, ya puritan pukes!" -Groundskeeper Willie

[bobster]

I winced when I heard about this, because it will only boost American xenophobes, who've been feeling particularly anti-Frog of late. I, however, am pro-Frog (I know this because I get a big lump in my throat when everyone sings the Marsiallese in "Casablanca" and I like onion soup with cheese quite a bit.)

But, seriously folks, this is an interesting story because, for those of us who follow the politics of the so-called religious right, the French are doing exactly what they are constantly (falsely) accusing the U.S. government (and specifically the courts). Everytime courts underline the need of government to be thoroughly neutral on religious matters, they take this as an attack on their religion -- because they are so used to the idea of quasi-official state support (which existed for many years, the constution notwithstanding) that its withdrawl seems like an attack.

Whatever its intent, Chirac's law is an attack, and very stupid on a practical level. You can't erase the unerasable. You can't force tolerance (though they try with Europe's almost as equally wrongheaded, though understandable, anti-hate group laws -- I think they have them in France as well as in Germany). And it is no one's right to interfere with anyone elses beliefs or practice of their religion. Indeed, thank God/Goddess/Buddha/Zeus/? and No One for the 1st Amendment and the "free exercise" clause.

[noiseradio]

POV makes a really good point. I would actually not be directly affected by this law. I don't feel the need to wear a cross or any outward symbol, though I think that's fine. But it's not a tenet of my faith that I'm supposed to wear anything specific as an outward expression. But if I were Jewish or Muslim, this law would require me to violate a fairly basic tenet of my faith. To a devout Muslim woman, it is a shame not to have her head covered. By which I mean she feels shamed. Why should we enact laws by which we inflict shame of peopel who wish to merely practice their faith?

Rope, you're right that rural white America would be more likely to mistreet a Muslim with a head covering than an urban environment would. But the law shouldn't punish the one who's different, it should protect them from the tyranny of the majority. You don't withhold rights from the practitioner to ensure equality, you punish those who discriminate. The law should come down on the side of freedom to express, not freedom from expression.

[Misha]

I foresee a new era of fashion in France including very large hats....

[Pov]

But the law shouldn't punish the one who's different, it should protect them from the tyranny of the majority. You don't withhold rights from the practitioner to ensure equality, you punish those who discriminate. The law should come down on the side of freedom to express, not freedom from expression.

Well said! You should run for public office.

[A rope leash]

The law isn't about restricting freedom of expression. It's about protecting society from violent and non-violent acts of repression.

If we have a law that can cut down on the number of instances that a person of a particular religious persuasion is attacked in some way, then we have come a long way in stopping discrimination before it happens. Result: a more peaceful world. Sure, the discriminator should be punished, but if we can stop the discriminator before he discriminates, then that's a good thing.

It's about preventing discrimination. Of course it won't work, because people think their religious tenets outweigh every other consideration. Frankly, in the midst of serious religious conflict, I'd chunk my garb in a second if it meant I couldn't be identified, and attacked. I know this idea is harder on some religions than others, but, we've all seen crosses and rosary beads adorning young Christians everywhere, as well as little fishies on the back of cars. Perhaps these aren't "required", but they do identify the possessor, and denying them is also a loss for that particular person and their religion.

On this emphatic "my religion REQUIRES this" arguement, I think it's pretty moot, or at least it will be if a law is passed. If France says you can't wear it, you can't wear it, and we will see who really makes the REQUIREMENTS in France. As I've said, I don't think this law will work, but not because it's discriminatory, but because the faithful will not be able to see beyond their own belief system to what is intended for the better good of the general public.

Let's say a white supremist has gone crazy in Texas, and is shooting Arabs because he's mad at Osama. Isn't the Arab much safer without his turbin? It's beyond me why anyone would die for their right to wear a certain headdress, but if their religion "requires" it, even in this case, then perhaps the religion itself is a danger to it's practitioners.

Every once in a while, a couple comes along with a sick child that they claim will be healed by their prayers to God. Do we ever let them use prayer as medicine? No, we discriminate against their belief system, and put them in jail for child endangerment, because the secular laws of our society rule over all other laws, and they do so for a very, very good reason.

Sorry I'm not comng around to ya'lls side on this, but, you know how I am.

[mood swung]

y'all is spelled y'all, y'all. I feel better.

[noiseradio]

Rope,

Making everyone appear the same may prevent discrimination, at least until someone sees a person of faith entering a mosque, synagogue or church, turning down non-Kosher food, choosing not to stand for the pledge, etc. And then, turban, yarmulka, or not, that person is identified by a particular faith. Not allowing people to wear garments required by their faith isn't going to keep bigots from finding out who to discriminate against. And if they can't figure out how to discriminate religiously, do you really think they will just stop discriminating? People who are of a discriminatory bent don't need a turban for a target. Skin color, eye color, length of nose, stature, accent--all perfectly targetable. If you really want to make people all the same, you'll have to figure out how to eliminate any differences in those categories as well. Sounds a little creepy to me.

Even if it could be pulled off, wouldn't we just be creating a society of conformist automatons? A world in which there are no substantial distinguishing characteristics from one person to the next? Who wants that?

A big difference between this situation in France and your faith healing scenario is that the decision not to treat is being made by the parents for their child, who can't make that decision on their own. And it's a literal matter of life and death, while the decision of whether or not to wear a turban is not.

[A rope leash]

Of course, it's all a matter of degree. Active bigots will find out who you are. Casual, or "subconcious" bigots, which abound everywhere, will judge you on your looks and dress. If we can prevent discrimination, then that's what we should do, because illegal discrimination is almost never prosecuted unless it comes in the form of a violent "hate crime".

A religious garment or accessory is fine, until someone starts taking thier particular beliefs too seriously, (as in "kill the infidel"), then the garb becomes an identifiyer. If you're standing next to someone who is a faithful practitioner of his religion's dress code, and he is targeted because of it by someone who has a beef with that religion, then you're going to wish he wasn't parading it around in public, where stand-byers can get hurt, as well. That is how it becomes a threat on the scale of faith-healing babies.

Of course, there's no religious war in France, but haven't we been listening to Fearless Leader? They hate our freedom, and they're going to blow us up! Everyone is a target, but some folks are more of a target than others.

This idea comes under the banner of protection for all, and if it pushes faith back into private realm, I also think that would be great. I can't drive down any highway around here without being confronted with church marquee after church marquee trying to sell me this week's religious "special". As an agnostic, it kind of sickens me, much like the site of a Buger King might do to a vegan. But, I've come to live with it.

Thank fate for free will. Thank the stars for secular government. Thank everyone for this lively yet civil debate on a very interesting subject.

O sure, Mood. That's how you spells it in Tennessee!