Tyche Shepherd

The current call by Sarkozy is about banning in *any* public context .

It is already banned in Schools and amongst public employees along with other religious symbols - That existing law is consistent in that respect , but Sarkozy's new proposition is not a consistent banning of all public religious clothing - just the Burqa, which is why he is using the demeaning to women argument and not that it is a statement of religious faith - Arguably if the crucifix was seen as demeaning to women then Sarkozy would also call for it's banning.

__________________

Chantal

Sorry if I was confusing, it was pre-caffeine. You're right that you can walk around wearing whatever you like but that veils, etc. are not allowed for public service / schools. There was a HUGE HUGE issue over 'scarves / veils at school' which went way beyond religious aspects.

Yes, the idea is now to ban the burkha in public, specifically.

Sarko is trying to fight the oppression of women, and I'm all for that (I don't honestly see the idea as him being anti-muslim but that's bandied about too). But there are so, so many different points of view, from those that say 'discrimination, let them wear it' to those that say 'stop ANY overt signs of religion, then, as France is religion-neutral' or a variation of the 'Burkha no, veils no, scarves yes, kippa no, small crosses yes'

The permutations are endless. Knowing France, I expect there are people somewhere who want to stop nuns and buddhist monks wearing their traditional clothing on the streets, and then there's the national front who would just like (most) foreigners to go away.

The fact that nobody forces nuns to wear what they do, and that the burkha is seen by many as demeaning to women, isn't even the issue for some people - they're the ones campaigning for 'equality' (until somebody wants to flood the market with foreign cheese or wine, of course...).

Personally, I'd love for it to be possible that women weren't forced to wear it. But not sure that forcing people NOT to wear it is going to work.

Cars will be burned, strikes will abound, a few riots will happen, and even if the legislation is passed some women will still wear it, in some parts of some cities. There will be reports of 'sanctions' if people are caught and a few more riots. Then fewer of them. Then the next political hot potato will arise (those pesky Americans banning the CHEESE or something) and the burkha will be relegated, mostly, to history. Like the veil now. Apparently in some schools, the staff choose not to 'enforce' the law.

Sorry if I sound cynical or flippant, but that's how I see it. Something as important as women's freedom should never be treated like that, ideally... but it will be.

Legislation is one thing. People actually obeying it is another. The French don't do 'obeying laws' that well. Those who live there soon get the hang of that, too.

__________________

Decor with a difference
A great new Mediterranean setting
Original, beautiful things for your home
Classy fashion
Contact Ariadne Korda

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Graces/128/198/22

Chantal

Ah... while I'm rambling I wanted to add that no, I don't see anything wrong with letting people go around dressed as they like, although I do have issues with the burkha.

But to some extent, wearing a crucifix or a kippa can (in some cases) can have the the specific aim of stirring up trouble, as in 'if you can wear a veil, then I can wear this': some people who would never normally wear such things DID do it during the 'veil wars', simply as a protest. Which is understandable in a way, but again it was in many cases less about religion or cultural identity and more a case of stirring up a few extra gang wars in already troubled inner cities.

Banning or allowing every single sign of religion (or some of them) - what's the solution? I don't think there is one. So what is the solution that would suit MOST people? Not an easy thing to find out.

Oryx Tempel

Then it wasn't a burqa. She was most probably wearing an abaya, hijab, and niqab. Just nit-picking.

__________________
Sister Oryx of the Tempel of Pestilence, Destroyer of Faith, Counter of Calories, Murderer of Virtue, whose Sadistic Laugh Rings from the Walls As Her Victims' Screams of Anguish Fade to Bloody, Choking Gurgles and Then Silence.

Oryx Tempel

And then you get into the difficulty that has arisen in the US with home-schooling. Parents raised holy hell to say that their freedom of expression, religion, etc were being curtailed because they couldn't teach their children as desired, and so were allowed to pull their kids for home-schooling. I've got nothing against home-schooling, per se, but in a Western democracy there will always be people complaining that their rights are being restricted, be it through mandatory education, religious dress, or political expression.

So what's the solution? Do we allow home-schooling, which may very well teach the wearing of the burqa as important? Or do we force all children to attend public schools which teach no religion? What about private religious schools?

Pussycat Catnap

We should get all the people in the world who just want those foreigners to go away, pack em up and ship em off to some island somewhere...

We'll call it...

Australia.

For lack of a better term.

Then they can divy it up into little parcels and stand on their lawns with shotguns yelling out:

"You kids get off my lawn!"

The rest of us can then move on in our modern global world.

CaleVinson

We probably need a separate thread for this, but it comes down to what you see as the "core principles" by which your society is run. *For me*, equality of opportunity is one of these core-principles, and that in turn implies a right to a certain level of education. If home-schooling can provide that level of education, great, but if not ........ More specifically, if you can cover the required common secular education for the day in eight hours (for example), then its up to the parent if they want to tack on an *additional* hour on the "benefits" (cough) of the Burqa. But the parents can't decide to replace one hour of science (say) with one hour of Burqa propaganda.

Aha! you say, Cale, I have you now! If I can declare equality of opportunity as a "core principle" (CP), why can't I also just declare banning of the Burqa as a CP for that country? And my answer, is that to do so would violate *other* CPs for the country, like the CP of the personal freedom to make decisions that don't negatively impact on others.

Finally, using the US is not the best example here, as of all the western democracies, it is probably the one closest to a religious fundamentalist state.

Oryx Tempel

Oy, I'm confuzzled... first you say:

And then you come back by saying the opposite?

I agree that home-schooling wrt religion should be a different thread, but it does all boil down to how much control the government has over individual expression.

I for one think the world would be a very dull place if people couldn't dress according to their religious beliefs (I'm always bemused to see Buddhist monks popping up in National Parks. )

Agreed.

CaleVinson

Sorry Oryx. I think my position is consistent, but I didn't express it very well.

When I said that one couldn't "withdraw their child from schooling", I wasn't talking about a physical withdrawal, from school to the home, but rather an "educational withdrawal", from being taught a common basic curricula, to being taught only about Thetans or something. I don't think the "where" of your education is overly important, the "what" of it is.

In Australia home schooling is allowed, but Parents can't just teach anything they like:

(http://www.education.vic.gov.au/abou...omeschool.htm)

Pussycat Catnap

/cry

Jesus was such a hippie too. WTF happened?

CaleVinson

And I might have thought that the common SLU answer to this question would be: "none, when it comes to the actions of an individual made of their own free will, that do not harm others".

Oryx Tempel

Oh, in the US it's the same as far as the basic curriculum. Kids have to pass tests commensurate to their grade level in order to remain in home-schooling. At any rate, I agree, the basics are important and should be a core value in a western society.

Oryx Tempel

In that case, no one should have a problem with the burqa, if a woman chooses to wear it of her own free will (uh huh, sure.)

CaleVinson

They can have "a problem with it" (I certainly do), but that's not the same thing as saying it should be banned.

And I gave an example of an Australian PhD student who claims to have chosen to "wear the veil" earlier.

Isabeau Imako

Same with me, (black burqa). When you see pictures, and they're under a blazing sun, I can't help thinking how uncomfortably hot they must be. Not only are their female form hidden, and their face covered, but they also have to endure the suns 'sucked up' rays. Goodness, how much more does one have to 'disappear' so as to not make it 'uncomfortable' for the men?

__________________






Aaachou!

Darkley

on a tenously related note....

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Manchester | Dress code dentist can practise

A Manchester based Dentist refused to treat a couple of muslim women unless they covered their heads

__________________
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinis alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes

My Flickr stream.....http://www.flickr.com/photos/darkley/

Pussycat Catnap

There's a lot of space for a thread on Home Schooling...

Should we kick one off?

Aimee Weber

I think this is OK because many women like wearing those scarves.

__________________
"I asked the Ouija Board about the ideomotor effect, but it just told me to f*ck off."

Isabeau Imako

Glad the pressure made him 'change his ways'.


What an Ass-hat looks like,

Arilynn

Actually, his name is "Dr. Butt".

CaleVinson

I didn't call the US a religious fundamentalist state - I said it was the closest to being one of all the western democracies. Which is a very different thing.

Now, even that statement may have been wrong, but the evidence I would offer is:

a) Existence of things like a Creationist Museum.

b) Laws (in *some*) states that provide a legal defense to parents who allow their children to die (by denying them access to medicine), on the basis of the parents religious beliefs.

c) Laws (in *some* states) that prohibit atheists from attaining high positions in government.

d) Concerted attacks on the US education system, in the form of demands for the teaching of creationism, etc.

Now, perhaps I am wrong, perhaps Italy, Spain and Ireland have the same or equivalent problems. Certainly Ireland's stand on abortion is appalling, I gather though that Spain is moving away from that position.

I will also say that its not the prevalence of religion in a country that is the issue here. Its the extent to which followers of a religion are able to *impose* their world-view on others. For me, a society whose population was, say, 99.9% Christian, does not become a *fundamentalist* society until those 99.9% seek to remove the rights of the 0.1%.

Pepsicle

For a math teacher you have quite broad horizons! I totally agree with this post, and I don't think you have to look very far to find other elements of religious fundamentalism, whether it is in commerce, the education system (forced study of creationism and the derision of evolution, or even worse, in some states, the removal of evolution/Darwinism from all textbooks and libraries), policies of political parties or government (even though the state is formally distinct from church), hollywood, criminal justice system, television and printed media or institutions, or indeed, religion itself.

Fundamentalism can be very subtle, and if you are immersed in it (or inured to it), you might not even realize it. Let's pick media as an example. Here is a link to a cover of a song, in this case performed by Buddy Miller:

youtube.com/watch?v=xF92JKKlfRM

It's very stirring isn't it? Let's assume that this is the first time you have heard this song. What is the key message? It is fairly clear from the lyrics - not subjective at all. God is on our side, so we can kill whoever we like, and other countries do it to us, so we can use whatever weapons we like, and we are RIGHT to do it. "You never ask questions when God's on your side". The song is accompanied by graphics that reinforce the intended message. The graphics also make the song heart-wrenching at the end.

But the song is completely distorted, and in the most subtle of ways. When I first heard it I thought it was intended to have the same meaning as the original by Bob Dylan. But then the Christian rock/country elements crept in, and I noticed that some of the words were subtly changed. No problem for me so far. And then I realized that a whole verse had been removed. Here's the original song for comparison:

youtube.com/watch?v=A0FewrYyYug&NR=1

The graphics are subtly different, and convey a meaning that is the polar opposite of the Buddy Miller version. The missing verse is the penultimate one - "I can't think for you, you'll have to decide...", the line that establishes, if you hadn't figured it out in the first six minutes of listening, that the song is meant to be ironic. Not surprising, it was written by a fairly liberal (genius) folk singer. The verse had to be removed from the Buddy Miller version because it suggested that you are allowed to question the intent of the lyrics, that you can explore the ideas for yourself and decide for yourself, and not just take the lyrics as an edict.

I still had to pinch myself over this. The Buddy Miller version MUST have some elements of the original intent in Dylan's lyrics, surely? I even LIKE Buddy's version. But, no is the answer. I checked it out. The Buddy Miller version is on his album called "Universal House of Prayer" (for all People of the Church on the Rock of the Apostolic Faith)" which charted quite highly in the US Christian CD chart. I am not so hot about the Buddy version now, so I'm gonna start diggin' for my copy of Dylan's "The times they are a-changin'", light some candles and have a hot bath.

There's some mental gymnastics available here for anyone that really wants to think about what I have written above. Look at the subtleties around you. Look at the obvious bits too! If you liked the Buddy Miller version of the song, then I ask this one question - imagine that the song (Buddy version) is being sung by a Russian during the cold war, or now, by an Iranian (or whoever is the sworn enemy of the moment), and that the flag in the graphics is the flag of their country. Does the song seem fundamentalist now, or is it just a foot-tapper?