| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2010 09:01:30 PM · #176 |
I can't respond for others but from a personal viewpoint this issue is one that for me falls under the parameters of security and has nothing to do with religion. It could well be that I am very naive relative to the Muslim religion, but I don't recall ever hearing that the wearing of the burqa was a religious requirement. If indeed it is a religious requirement, why is it that not all women of that faith don veils.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me in this regard.
Ray
|
|
|
|
09/15/2010 09:45:12 PM · #177 |
Question for you Doc... Do you believe that the Rastafarians have a bona fide religion and if so do you believe that they should be allowed to exercise some of the basic tenets of their religion... such as those described here:
Ganja is also seen by Rastafarians as the herb of life mentioned in the Bible. Rastafarians use of ganja is justified by the following Psalms 104:14 that says, "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle and herb for the service of man, that he may bring forth food out of the earth." Rastafarians also say it was found growing at the grave of King Solomon in the Bible.
There must be some degree of validity here don't you think...they do make reference to the bible and if it's in the bible it must be true. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 10:05:37 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Think of it as a bridge-building opportunity lost. The intellectually honest position for those advocating liberty would be to call out anti-liberty laws as such even if they did not agree with the activity itself. Sara, Monica and Paul managed to make a response and I think that's great. |
I responded too, thank you very much.
However, I think you're purposely missing a major point here too. Burkas are not JUST a religious freedom issue, as I think you know full well. It's far more complicated than that. France may be going way over-board, but there may be things there that we that don't live in France don't really get to see, hear, or experience. I know you LOVE trying to trap people inside your own intellectually complicated, yet emotionally vacant mazes, but seriously. Sometimes you just don't get it :D |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 10:21:05 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Burkas are not JUST a religious freedom issue, as I think you know full well. |
To tell you the truth, I don't know what other issue it is. I think France views them as against women's right and had decided to ban them as such. Who was it above that noted that if you are fined for wearing one you have to attend "citizenship classes" which sounds like something straight out of 1984.
It can't be a security issue for various reasons of how the law has been written. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 10:57:35 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Burkas are not JUST a religious freedom issue, as I think you know full well. |
To tell you the truth, I don't know what other issue it is. I think France views them as against women's right and had decided to ban them as such. Who was it above that noted that if you are fined for wearing one you have to attend "citizenship classes" which sounds like something straight out of 1984.
It can't be a security issue for various reasons of how the law has been written. |
I was reading a list of the top 50 banned books the other day. 1984 was on there. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 11:08:32 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Who was it above that noted that if you are fined for wearing one you have to attend "citizenship classes" which sounds like something straight out of 1984. |
That was me, quoting a reference. That's the part that chills me. Someone mentioned Rastafarians. I'm thinking Jews in skullcaps and earlocks. I think it's an insane precedent France is setting. I don't care what their reasons are. When you tell people what they have to wear, or cannot wear, and tell them if they don't toe the line they will be forced to attend re-education classes, then I get freaked out.
R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 12:27:34 AM · #182 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But why was there no response when it was posed as a real question for discussion? |
I posted a response earlier today.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A few times future scenarios were brought up where churches might be forced to perform gay marriages or hold them in their buildings. These scenarios were often scoffed at as being reactionary and henny-penny. People didn't understand what the big deal was. |
You completely mischaracterize the responses, which were to the effect that
1) no church would/could be "forced to perform" gay marriages
2) churches which rent facilities to the public are not allowed to discriminate, unless they forego their tax-exemption for the property and pay taxes on the net income, like any other profit-making business which "reserves the right to refuse service to anyone."
I believe my own responses were purely informative and devoid of "scoffing" ... |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 04:03:30 AM · #183 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It can't be a security issue for various reasons of how the law has been written. |
To tell us exactly what you think are the legal reasons behind the enactment of the law then perhaps we can provide some of that wonderful feedback you desire.
One cannot argue issues in a vacuum and as things stand, it would seem we all could use some enlightenment as to what the law says.
You say you don't think it is a security issue and I on the other hand truly do believe that security is at the forefront of this discussion. The example of Jews and skullcaps is not exactly the same...one can see faces in the latter case...not so much in the former and therein lies the difference.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 11:36:59 AM · #184 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It can't be a security issue for various reasons of how the law has been written. |
To tell us exactly what you think are the legal reasons behind the enactment of the law then perhaps we can provide some of that wonderful feedback you desire.
One cannot argue issues in a vacuum and as things stand, it would seem we all could use some enlightenment as to what the law says.
You say you don't think it is a security issue and I on the other hand truly do believe that security is at the forefront of this discussion. The example of Jews and skullcaps is not exactly the same...one can see faces in the latter case...not so much in the former and therein lies the difference.
Ray |
The predecessor to the law was the ban of face veils in 2004 in schools. At the time the law forbid the wearing of "ostentatious" religious symbols including "large crosses".
The current law does not make any attempts to ban clothing that may be used to hide an identity or a weapon.
A man caught forcing a woman to wear a full-length veil can be fined $39,000 which is about 200 times the fine the woman faces.
The requirement to attend "citizenship classes" if you are fined.
This is all evidence to point at a specific reason for the law. There is no evidence to say that the reason is one of security. I'd post the wiki on the ban, but the site seems to be having trouble.
EDIT: Wiki is working now. Here's the link.
The nail in the coffin of your reasoning is probably a simple quote from French president Sarkozy, Sarkozy had stated that the law "is to protect women from being forced to cover their faces and to uphold France's secular values."
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 12:08:39. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 12:14:38 PM · #185 |
From an article I read...
In Cairo, Islamic scholar Abdelmotie Bayoumi said a French ban would not violate Islamic law, but would violate personal freedoms.
"The niqab has no strong legitimacy based on the Quran or in examples from the Prophet's life that makes it a religious imposition on women. A Muslim woman wears the niqab not because of religious duty, but as a personal freedom," said Bayoumi, whose books include "Contemporary Testimonies," about the full-face veil.
link... //www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/france-burqa-ban-french-p_n_644433.html |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 12:24:47 PM · #186 |
| That seems to make sense since the stats say France has millions of muslims but only about 2,000 are estimated to wear a full-length veil. It's beside the point though. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 12:30:08 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That seems to make sense since the stats say France has millions of muslims but only about 2,000 are estimated to wear a full-length veil. It's beside the point though. |
Not really. If you're saying the point is religion and religious "experts" are saying it has nothing to do with the religion. Then what is the point? Personal freedom? We've all lost that, no matter where you live. In the article I linked, there is a quote that certain parts of the government only wanted the ban in certain places which points to the security issue.
"...the Socialist Party, walked out and refused to vote, though they in fact support a ban. They simply have differences over where it should be enforced, underscoring the lack of controversy among French politicians on the issue.
The bill passed Tuesday bans face-covering veils everywhere that can be considered public space, even in the street, but the Socialists only want it in certain places, such as government buildings, hospitals and public transport." |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 12:38:41 PM · #188 |
| The issue is one of sublimation of culture, not religious intolerance. All of Europe is struggling with it. And incidentally, this discussion doesn't belong in this thread. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 12:40:28 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That seems to make sense since the stats say France has millions of muslims but only about 2,000 are estimated to wear a full-length veil. It's beside the point though. |
Not really. If you're saying the point is religion and religious "experts" are saying it has nothing to do with the religion. Then what is the point? Personal freedom? We've all lost that, no matter where you live. In the article I linked, there is a quote that certain parts of the government only wanted the ban in certain places which points to the security issue.
"...the Socialist Party, walked out and refused to vote, though they in fact support a ban. They simply have differences over where it should be enforced, underscoring the lack of controversy among French politicians on the issue.
The bill passed Tuesday bans face-covering veils everywhere that can be considered public space, even in the street, but the Socialists only want it in certain places, such as government buildings, hospitals and public transport." |
I lack any degree of expertise on Islamic Law so I can't tell you if the guy quoted is a liberal Muslim (I assume there are Muslim counterparts to liberal Christians). I would point to Amnesty International's opposition to the ban as being enough of a marker in my view to support the argument that it is a violation of religious freedom and nothing else. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 01:03:43 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Louis:
The issue is one of sublimation of culture, not religious intolerance. All of Europe is struggling with it. And incidentally, this discussion doesn't belong in this thread. |
I didn't want to start a thread called "France the Ignorant". :) These Rant threads are all pretty freeform anyway. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 01:55:33 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But why was there no response when it was posed as a real question for discussion? |
I haven't been on the computer for a couple days while painting a bedroom for a very anxious 10yo and came back to see you crying foul that not enough people responded less than two hours after an initial post. I would hope people take the time to find out more information on a foreign law and custom rather than just spitting out a gut reaction. You then repeat your disappointment that there wasn't much response after posts from Louis, Yanko, GeneralE, K10DGuy, and SaraR. Charming.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A man caught forcing a woman to wear a full-length veil can be fined $39,000 which is about 200 times the fine the woman faces. |
That should give you a clue (although it's $19,000, not $39,000). The French point of view is that burqas have absolutely nothing to do with religious respect, and everything to do with the segregation and subjugation of another human being. Women don't choose to wear full length "paper bags" over their heads. It's a restriction of personal freedom- along with taboos against driving and going to school- placed upon women by men using religion as an excuse. As shown in Afghanistan, burqa use declines drastically when coercion is removed. If someone in this country locked his children in a closet lest they be seen in public, he'd be charged with abuse. Making that closet portable doesn't really lessen the enslavement, which is why this action has overwhelming support in France, and similar measures are favored or under way in the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Belgium.
Allowing people to show their faces in public is a legitimate matter of human dignity and freedom that may trump religious belief. Although that won't be decided for sure until courts rule on the constitutionality of the ban, French courts have already upheld the 2005 case of a woman's application for citizenship which was rejected for wearing a burqa and living in "total submission" to her husband. "She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes,â it said.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Someone mentioned Rastafarians. I'm thinking Jews in skullcaps and earlocks. I think it's an insane precedent France is setting. I don't care what their reasons are. When you tell people what they have to wear, or cannot wear, and tell them if they don't toe the line they will be forced to attend re-education classes, then I get freaked out. |
...and this is why most Americans disapprove of the same measure: Ye Olde Slippery Slope. Earlocks, yarmulkes, simple veils, bindis and crosses on a necklace do not fall into the same category. They are not virtual cages forced upon others. They don't eliminate personal identity or preclude basic social interaction. The purpose of the citizenship course is to educate... to explain that there is no second class in France: the sexes are equal and entitled to equal public freedom regardless of personal belief. A burqa is the antithesis of personal liberty, but many Americans only see a religious tradition and therefore consider it off-limits for fear that their own customs might be next even while they generally support similar acts against religious subjugation such as caste systems. Good choice of thread for the post. :-/ |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 02:23:32 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...and this is why most Americans disapprove of the same measure: Ye Olde Slippery Slope. Earlocks, yarmulkes, simple veils, bindis and crosses on a necklace do not fall into the same category. |
But did you see that according to the 2004 law many of those things DO fall into the same category?
The Stasi Commission published its report on 11 December 2003, considering that ostentatious displays of religion violated the secular rules of the French school system. The report recommended a law against pupils wearing "conspicuous" signs of belonging to a religion, meaning any visible symbol meant to be easily noticed by others. Prohibited items would include headscarves for Muslim girls, yarmulkes for Jewish boys, and turbans for Sikh boys. The Commission recommended allowing the wearing of discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands.
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 14:26:42. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 02:42:48 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But did you see that according to the 2004 law many of those things DO fall into the same category? |
No, you're confusing a school dress code with general law. Our public schools have certain restrictions, too: hats, cutoffs, drug-related, gang-related, political or overly religious messages can get a child sent home right here in the U.S. even though wearing them in public would be protected speech. Apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 02:45:49 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But did you see that according to the 2004 law many of those things DO fall into the same category? |
No, you're confusing a school dress code with general law. Our public schools have certain restrictions, too: hats, cutoffs, drug-related, gang-related, political or overly religious messages can get a child sent home right here in the U.S. even though wearing them in public would be protected speech. Apples and oranges. |
Umm, no I'm not. It's law...French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools
The bill passed France's national legislature and was signed into law by President Jacques Chirac on 15 March 2004.
That's no "you can't wear pants that are falling off your ass" dress code...
Just to be clear, are you taking a position contrary to Amnesty International? Do you think their opinion is in error?
EDIT: as a humorous anecdote. Eugene high schools have banned the awareness bracelets that say "I (heart) boobies" because, for some reason, 9th grade boys were apprently very interested in raising awareness of breast cancer. The Oregon legislature had nothing to do with the policy. This is dress code...not law.
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 15:01:54. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 03:04:28 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
you're confusing a school dress code with general law. |
Umm, no I'm not... |
Umm, yes you most certainly are. The first sentence of your link: "The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public (i.e. government-operated) primary and secondary schools." It's a school dress code. The French are NOT proposing to banish wearing conspicuous religious symbols in public, but banning the burqa ONLY because it's "sexual apartheid," and against their laws of equality (a separate issue).
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 15:04:52. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 03:17:48 PM · #196 |
| I actually think Jason is right. Caveat - this is an issue that got some considerable coverage in the UK media a few years ago, and whilst a read the newspaper reports at the time, I may have mis-remembered detail. Dress code in schools is governed by law, rather than merely being a code formulated by individual school governing bodies. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 03:31:54 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
Dress code in schools is governed by law, rather than merely being a code formulated by individual school governing bodies. |
??? "A code formulated by individual school governing bodies" *IS* "governed by law," but what's allowed by law in schools is not the same as what's allowed in general public or private life. The constitutions of France and the U.S. both mandate separation of church and state, but they differ somewhat in that France considers schools and government entities religion-free while the U.S. chooses a religion-equal approach. However daily life is not a state entity, so France will not (and cannot) ban religious symbols from private life. What they CAN do is ban subjugation of one class or group by another. The burqa law is therefore NOT a separation of church and state issue like school dress codes, but a matter of equality for all citizens similar to bans against slavery and segregation. As I said, apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 03:58:56 PM · #198 |
Hehe. This has to be your worst argument ever Shannon.
If France considers schools "religion-free" then why do they allow "discrete displays"?
It doesn't matter if the law is just in schools or in public, the point is it is anti-religion. That's the whole, entire point. The argument follows that if it can happen there, it can happen here. The obvious first step is to ban the "easy stuff". The vast majority of people don't agree with body-veils so it's a no-brainer. But once you get the collective psyche to be comfortable with the limiting of religious expression, then you ban it all. My whole argument was to point out that the US religious person who appears to be paranoid and overreacts to any affront to their religious expression has, in this law, a reasonable reason to worry. We can hope the worry is ultimately unwarranted, but it is not irrational.
Your argument also goes directly against Amnesty International who, I think, is a well respected institution by all sides. When they speak, people tend to listen.
It sounds to me like you are making the argument that if one group of people feels like an activity is immoral, that they have the right to enforce that code upon another group who disagrees. Interesting.
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 16:02:11. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 04:11:00 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A man caught forcing a woman to wear a full-length veil can be fined $39,000 which is about 200 times the fine the woman faces. |
That should give you a clue (although it's $19,000, not $39,000). The French point of view is that burqas have absolutely nothing to do with religious respect, and everything to do with the segregation and subjugation of another human being. Women don't choose to wear full length "paper bags" over their heads. It's a restriction of personal freedom- along with taboos against driving and going to school- placed upon women by men using religion as an excuse. As shown in Afghanistan, burqa use declines drastically when coercion is removed. |
Then why not, rather than ban the practice altogether, just fine a man who forces a woman to wear the hideous contraption? I've been reading some articles about this that say that out of 3 to 4 million Muslims in France, it's estimated that only about 2,000 women were wearing the burqa before the law was passed. If living in a free society has the effect of reducing the incidence of this type of practice, then let freedom take its course, punish the people who are employing coercion against women, and allow the tiny number of women who may be freely choosing to wear this thing wear it. I agree with everything you've said about the practice itself, and I agree that religion should not be allowed to be used as an excuse to oppress people. But I'm suspicious of the government banning the practice outright. I know it's hard to believe, but isn't it possible that some women are wearing it because they want to, with no coercion involved? What right does the government have to prohibit such a personal decision?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2010 04:14:02 PM · #200 |
| *gasp*. I totally agree with Judith. :) Well, I 98% agree with her... |
|
