Chirac and the hijab

Originally posted by frankvw
I agree, but when such signs create segregation in those same schools, some action has to be taken. You can’t change the way people act towards diffenences, but you can change the way they dress to “uniformise” it a little. I don’h hear people complaining about school uniforms in Britain. This is the same, apart the fact it touches a religious symbol. Pupils go to school to learn, not to show their faith.

The simple fact the it does touch a religious symbol is what makes the Hijab entirely different from school uniform, this is no trivial matter. Preventing Muslim girls from wearing the Hijab is a form of religious coercion no different from forcing them to go covered as was once the practice in Afghanistan. A liberal democracy cannot tell its citizens how and when to practice their faith. The Hijab is an integral part of Muslim belief, it’s not about showing your faith, it’s about practicing it.
Granted, France does have its integration problems, but it is dealing with them in the worst possible way. On the one hand it’s dictating behaviour inconsistant with their beliefs (not a good idea for integration), and on the other forcing observant parents to withdraw their daughters from the public education system, sending them to schools over which the state has no influence (not a good idea for integration).

Besides, you have the answer to this law in the french motto itself: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. Equality is applicable here, too.

Such a ban makes a mockery of both liberty and equality. Equality cannot be dictated, it must be practiced, and in this case this means letting people practice the faith they believe in.

Of course, but have you ever seen what was on the german WW2 army’s belt buckles ? it was, translated, “God, with us”…

Interesting, I did not know that, but nothing more than an anecdote. National Socialism wasn’t about religion. Neither are the millions who are dying in the Congo.

I’m speaking of such easy relations. And this is one reason why Religion and State should be separated from the start. School is the State. Administration is the State.

I agree, I do think separation of state and church are a good idea. I’d certainly like to see more of it here in Israel. But the lines are not always so distinct, and I don’t think France should be telling people where and when to practice their faith. Individual rights should be curbed only when they infringe on other rights. I do not think this is the case.
To make matters worse, the events around the ban in fact make a mockery of the whole concept of separating church from state. If the French interior miniter Sarkozy needs the approval of an Egyptian cleric for a piece of domestic legislation, well, not only is there no separation, but where is the “state”?

Now, in France, you’ll never hear a politician calling for God in a speec relating with war. On the other hands, many other nations do. How many times, in recent conflict, did I hear arab head of states or religious leaders calling for holy wars, how many times did i hear US politicians saying “God Bless America”, or “With the help of God, we’ll do the right”, or stuff like that.

There is to be a trend blame every human sickness on one religion or another. Religion is a good card to carry around, but it’s rarely a motive, more like an excuse. You’ll take it away, there will always be another. Was Stalin an observant man? I don’t think so.

Another problem in France is that many kids from foreign origin, often northern Africa, live in appatment buildings, and those are concentrated, making it a real dangerous zone, a kind of ghetto. And they usually don’t integrate to the population. The result being social differences and tensions. This is one more way to remove a social difference.

France’s problems are very real, which is why I don’t understand why they are not taking them head on, but rather picking on little girls. This will do nothing but further estrange the Muslim population. What France should be doing is investing heavily in its educational system, making sure the very noble principles on which French democracy is founded reach every household. This cannot be achieved though draconian legislation, it only serves to erode these principles.

actually it seems the severe case of UN UNDERSTANDING other religions is the main reason for this, one way or an other, this is a way to kick moslems out of France, you know … the fear of them becoming too many and forming a large percentage of the population, add to it all the bombings againist the first mayor of Algerian origin and you have a clear picture .

Is it the same event as in Belgium: not wearing towels (sorry don’t know the correct word in English) on your head in school? This I agree with, you can be religious but do it at home or in your local community.

You are right, it does. It takes some liberty to all people in the country. But as a result, it avoids a whole lot of problems to everybody, and make sure some idiotic events won’t happen again.

I’m afraid for once I’ll have to agree with Skythe .

this law is about confiscating the freedome of a part of the nation, nothing else .

Both the French and American constitution are quite similar dealing with secularism (18th century enlightment, Locke and Montesqieu). The US was the first to make a real difference between church and state, followed a couple of years later by the French revolutionairy constitutions (there have been 4 or 5 though :)).

Many “liberal” (liberal, not democratic) politicians or leaders, like Napoleon and Napoleon III have called upon God for protection of their country/troops, so this is not so strange. I don’t think religion itself is dangerous, not even on a state-level -personally I wouldn’t object to mention the catholic (or any) church into a European consitution-, all depends on how the leaders react to it. Jimmy Carter was also a very religious man, and probably he used the same words as GW Bush, but in a totally different context.

The words “liberté, egalité and fraternité” can’t be said in one phrase. Either you chose liberté (liberalism), egalité (socialism) or fraternité (catholicism). Liberty also means the right to have a religion, only it should be a secular religion (laïcisme in french I think).

Same for the US constitution. Thomas Paine’s essay “Common Sense” advocated seperation of church and state, or at least tollerance towards other religions. However, the Quakers (fundamentalists) were the first ones to condemn slavery, and not the liberal politicians. Strange though … The US constitution however is still the most democratic and liberal (more so than the French).

Actually constitutions are very interresting to read :)!

And nazism and communism were anti-religious AND anti-liberal indeed, in theory. But Stalin has used the Russian Orthodox Church to unite Russians during Operation Barbarossa, and Hitler did the same.

Originally posted by skythe
Little girls wearing the Hijab are not a threat to the separation of church and state. A threat emerges when the state presumes it has the right to tell individuals how to live their lives and what cloths to wear or not. A secular state does not necessitate that individuals be secular as well, but it does require that they be given a choice.

I agree, but when such signs create segregation in those same schools, some action has to be taken. You can’t change the way people act towards diffenences, but you can change the way they dress to “uniformise” it a little. I don’h hear people complaining about school uniforms in Britain. This is the same, apart the fact it touches a religious symbol. Pupils go to school to learn, not to show their faith.

Besides, you have the answer to this law in the french motto itself: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. Equality is applicable here, too.

With all due respect, a tired cliche’. Neither Nazism nor Communism were about religion, yet somehow they managed to be quite murderous nonetheless.

Of course, but have you ever seen what was on the german WW2 army’s belt buckles ? it was, translated, “God, with us”…

I’m speaking of such easy relations. And this is one reason why Religion and State should be separated from the start. School is the State. Administration is the State.

Now, in France, you’ll never hear a politician calling for God in a speec relating with war. On the other hands, many other nations do. How many times, in recent conflict, did I hear arab head of states or religious leaders calling for holy wars, how many times did i hear US politicians saying “God Bless America”, or “With the help of God, we’ll do the right”, or stuff like that.

I know i’m digressing here, but… Gos had nothing to do with that dirty business, and to ome back to the subject, if you don’t learn pupils from young on to separate both, they’ll never do.

Another problem in France is that many kids from foreign origin, often northern Africa, live in appatment buildings, and those are concentrated, making it a real dangerous zone, a kind of ghetto. And they usually don’t integrate to the population. The result being social differences and tensions. This is one more way to remove a social difference.

Originally posted by frankvw
This is perfectly logical for France. How could a country that separetes State and Religion accept religious signs in thebublic life ?

Little girls wearing the Hijab are not a threat to the separation of church and state. A threat emerges when the state presumes it has the right to tell individuals how to live their lives and what cloths to wear or not. A secular state does not necessitate that individuals be secular as well, but it does require that they be given a choice.

If all over the world, the priests stayed in their places of cult, and the politicians stopped invoking God (or however you call him) as a reason for their acting, there would be far less problems.

With all due respect, a tired cliche’. Neither Nazism nor Communism were about religion, yet somehow they managed to be quite murderous nonetheless.

Let me remind two things.

1) This law will apply only in the governement buildings such as schools , City halls , police atc….

2) It’s not only about muslim signs but any religious or political signs: therefore kippa , David cross, Christian cross or anysign of any political party are prohibited.

So please no shortcut….
But Sauron is always perfectly objective so I have no concern 🙂

This is perfectly logical for France. How could a country that separetes State and Religion accept religious signs in thebublic life ? In 1969, people fought the catholic church because of their influence. And they will combat other external religious signs for the same reasons.

Of course, yoou won’t see “In God we trust” on Euro banknotes… Nor would you have seen them on French Francs.

If all over the world, the priests stayed in their places of cult, and the politicians stopped invoking God (or however you call him) as a reason for their acting, there would be far less problems.

And before someone calls me a racist or whatever, be sure I’m not.