There was no law, it was made on purpose, that is different. And is different because the law is completly unneccessary. I don't know of any single case of a child that is christian, atheist or jew that changes his faith to islam because he sees a girl with a scarf. This law is protecting who from what? The answer is none from nothing. The only consequence is that kids will be less open to other cultures and religions. A pity.
Maybe you could answer to the question: Who is this law protecting? And from what?
Because no one ever has been harmed by the scarf of a girl, as far as I know. And no one has changed his religious believes for a scarf neither. Or am I wrong?
According to what I've heard about it, they are talking about "over-sized" cross. To be honnest, I know France is a catholic country but I wonder how many students come to school with a monk's cross...
Well, how kind of you. It's nice to know the state is looking out for poor defenceless Muslim women forced to wear the veil against their will. It does seem strange though that the state limits itself to just Muslim women and the veil. Why not bring in a law forbidding the wearing of ugly sweater brought by Grandmothers as Christmas presents? Why not bring in a law forbidding mothers from buying children shoes three times too large in the bizarre impression they will somehow grow into them? Why not ban children from wearing shorts in cold weather? Why not ban novelty ties? Why just the veil?
Well personnaly, I consider the veil as different from other religious symbols since its purpose isn't to claim our individual differences. Its purpose is to claim a kind of submission (submission to the family, or men, or the communauty, or God, etc...). However, I wonder how it works in French schools.
Actually, I think everyone agrees on one thing : We must promote individualism. Mr President considers the veil as a sign of individualism when Marla Singer considers it as something against individualism since it's undoubtedly a brake to women's emancipation. I don't know what to think about it personally... I guess the best would be that girls themselves choose to not wear it... but we must not pressure them to make that choice... and banning the veil from public school is definitly a pressure.
There was no law, it was made on purpose, that is different. And is different because the law is completly unneccessary. I don't know of any single case of a child that is christian, atheist or jew that changes his faith to islam because he sees a girl with a scarf. This law is protecting who from what? The answer is none from nothing. The only consequence is that kids will be less open to other cultures and religions. A pity.
There's no twist at all. "Muslims" aren't a homogeneous people. Don't be naive, fundamentalists are pressuring the muslim people in Europe to convince them the only rightful Islam is the fundamentalist version of it.
The message of France is simple : We don't have to wear the veil to be a good muslim. We don't have to refuse to get healed by a male physician to be a good muslim. We don't have to refuse any contact with any other man than our husband to be a good muslim. That vision of Islam is fundamentalist and actually an aggressive vision of a religion of peace.
Marla, you are asuming that wearing a veil is a bad thing (which I partially agree) and hence promoting not to wear it is good. But, note that the law is against all religious symbols, including those that are not bad (in the sense that are not discriminatory like the veil). Try to apply your argument to ban the skullcap for jews for example. Is the skullcap a bad thing per se that we should try to eliminate like the veil?
I like this new law, but the reactions here are mixed. A column-writer thought it was outrageous and discrimination, while the priest today said he thought it was a positive thing.
I don't think that just because a religion is established, a law can't supercede it.
@MrPresident, you say you think it should be prohibited to wear messages like "I hate Bush", but if that's who I am, my view, why can't I? Should it be forbidden to wear the message "I love Bush"?
I would have never imagined I would be once considered as a nazi simply because I consider young kids should be protected from wearing the veil at public school. This decision has no other purpose than to promote women's emancipation.
The veil should be weared only because of a personnal choice. Thus, the veil shouldn't be banned once people are over 18 in any public places. However, at school, it would be a crime to let young girls wearing a niqab, a burqa or a hijab. That would mean : we know you're pressured to stay submitted and we won't do anything against it. Stay in your own muslim communauty far from us. This is segregation, not the opposite.
I'm totally disgusted by the arguments advanced in here. And by the way, Andrew, if you don't know how French school works, it's simple. We are all together. The friends I've kept from school come from all cultures and, just like me, they don't feel persecuted.
Should I also remind you that muslims still want to come in France. Have you seen many jews fleeing to Germany between 1933 and 1945 ??
Originally posted by MrPresident
Oh, come on! A serious discussion about has no place for such petty debating techniques.
(...)
Why not bring in a law forbidding the wearing of ugly sweater brought by Grandmothers as Christmas presents? Why not bring in a law forbidding mothers from buying children shoes three times too large in the bizarre impression they will somehow grow into them? Why not ban children from wearing shorts in cold weather? Why not ban novelty ties? Why just the veil?
Funny that you would attack Akka for using a "petty debating technique" - and use exactly the same in the same post
Originally posted by MrPresident
It's nice to know the state is looking out for poor defenceless Muslim women forced to wear the veil against their will
Not women, MrPresident. Little girls. And you can say what you want, inquiries made on the subject show that in the overwhelming majority of cases schoolgirls who wear the veil do so because they are ordered to by their parents, or more and more frequently by their brothers. You are not trying to protect the rights of the schoolgirls to express their religion, but that of their families to impose the veil on them.
Originally posted by MrPresident
Some Muslims believe that if women do not wear the veil they are sinning. So this ruling effectively condemns such people to hell (in their eyes).
Some muslims, nearly always male, believe that if their wife is treated by a male doctor, she is sinning and are thus demanding that public hospitals, even in cases of emergency, have a woman doctor treat them. If none is available, they want the woman to wait.
I honestly ask you, should a democratic state allow that in the name of freedom of religion?
Originally posted by Akka
All the rest has already been treated in the previous thread, and frankly I'm tired to repeating myself. Dig it if you want your answers. Or ask Kinniken, he's much more patient, diplomatic and dedicaced than I am.
I may be "patient, diplomatic and dedicaced", but unless the discussion progresses a bit, I get bored as well Though when I am bored, I just leave the thread instead of continuing too long. Marla_Singer will stay and argument for the three of us anyway
Anyway, even though this thread for the moment is too much a repeat of the old one, the other thread was actually interesting. It's rare to see a topic outside of the usual ones draw such a heated debate, and I think some interesting points were made by both sides. I know I understands the objections to the law much better now, even if I still disagree with them.
Originally posted by Akka
My argument, though, is not in numbers. It's simply that religions are personnal, and that the society should NOT be shaped to fit them.
As for the "extend to private business as well", I think there is a misunderstanding. As I read it, it's not that the ban will be extended to private sphere, it's that "Companies should also be free to ban the wearing of head scarves and other religious signs for reasons of safety or customer relations, Chirac said.".
It's more a permission for companies to ask their employees to have secular clothing.
Of course they should not - and they are strictly forbidden from doing so in France. They are also forbidden from firing someone for his religious, philosophical or political views. The purpose of the law is to make an exemption to allow firing for wearing too obvious religious symbols. I can see why it would be needed in some case - it is currently forbidden to fire a sale assistant for wearing a burka, for exemple - but I still oppose it on principle.
If it's really about protecting muslim girls of beign forced of wearing a veil, then how can you justify the ban of jewish skullcaps? Are the boys forced to wear them? Is it an embaressment to them? Of course not.
Going down in a fight with a sword is different than just wearing a veil. Chirac's actions are unjustifed. Forcing woman to not wear the veil is just as bad as forcing every woman to wear a veil.
Originally posted by luiz If it's really about protecting muslim girls of beign forced of wearing a veil, then how can you justify the ban of jewish skullcaps? Are the boys forced to wear them? Is it an embaressment to them? Of course not.
To be honest, the law is about mainly about the veil and jewish skullcaps would probably never have been banned on their own. But laws have to be as non-discriminative as possible, and that made the banning of every excessive religious symbol the only recourse.
However, while a skullcaps is a much more limited problem, it does tend to bring Jewish children together as opposed to mixing with others. I know from experience that the Jews who wore skullcaps I met in school tended to be the one staying between themselves. The other just mixed (including believers who simply did not wear a skullcap).
Originally posted by Zarn Forcing woman to not wear the veil is just as bad as forcing every woman to wear a veil.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Though when I am bored, I just leave the thread instead of continuing too long. Marla_Singer will stay and argument for the three of us anyway 
