French lawmakers Approve Full Veil Ban

[think]

mom and dad let me choose my religion: it took till the age Buddha was when he spoke the lotus sutra did I decide to "study" these percepts in detail as they were passed down through the spirals of time/space., even still it is just a practice and study by the rote mantra's of that. when does the light of heart break the scales of time in superfluous meaningless spontaneity ???

So would controlling the vial veil mean we are better then:? NO just that we have control of someones freedom and spontaneity.

 

[Strider]

mom and dad let me choose my religion: it took till the age Buddha was when he spoke the lotus sutra did I decide to "study" these percepts in detail as they were passed down through the spirals of time/space., even still it is just a practice and study by the rote mantra's of that. when does the light of heart break the scales of time in superfluous meaningless spontaneity ???

So would controlling the vial veil mean we are better then:? NO just that we have control of someones freedom and spontaneity.

 

[Deckerd]

French people may not live in the holy land of liberty, but not even in France the government keeps track on individuals religious belonings. Nor anywhere in Europe.

Excuse me, [puts hand up at back of room] I think you'll find the UK government tramples like a herd of elephants over that statement.

 

[Deckerd]

It isn't just the Americans that have this "crazy" idea of freedom.

No, your idea of freedom. The American (and anglo-saxon......) view on religions is not universal.

BTW : laïcité

Wait, so does French secularism mean that there are no public displays of religion whatsoever?

Don't be silly. The only thing they're banning is a black blanket over a woman's head with an eye slit. Any sane government would do the same.

 

[Rii]

Heh, well this thread has certainly gone to hell and back.

Of course banning veils is discriminatory against Muslims. Banning public nudity is discriminatory against nudists. The notion that the two are somehow different is rooted in the idea that religion is something exceptional, that the exercise of religion stands apart from other forms of speech; that 'Muslims' are in need of protection that 'nudists' aren't deserving of. It reflects a reverence for religion that is not at all secular, but is in fact positively theocratic. Indeed, it's a function of the historical and contemporary power of the church within western civilisation.

The above doesn't suggest any particular position re: France's decision here; but it must be placed in the appropriate context: if France is a fascist nation for banning veils, then other nations are fascist for outlawing public nudity.

 

[Docbrown777]

I don't think I would disagree with that. I wouldn't but if someone wanted to walk around naked I don't see that big of a deal with it. Of course private businesses are still allowed to have certain clothing requirements if they want. If you made being 100% naked perfectly legal the only place you would probably notice a change would be near a beach or pool.

Then we get into the whole conversation of just why the heck is being naked taboo anyways.

I'm for freedom in all directions.

 

[Rii]

I don't think I would disagree with that. I wouldn't but if someone wanted to walk around naked I don't see that big of a deal with it. Of course private businesses are still allowed to have certain clothing requirements if they want. If you made being 100% naked perfectly legal the only place you would probably notice a change would be near a beach or pool.

Then we get into the whole conversation of just why the heck is being naked taboo anyways.

I'm for freedom in all directions.

I agree. I think it's an unfortunate business that's been wrought here. But some of the hysterics about it are, well, hysterical. I think France (and Turkey and other nations which similarly embrace 'positive secularity' as a national value) has a fundamentally good idea in desiring to keep religion out of the public sphere. I don't agree with enshrining that value into law, however. Indeed, if you have to make it a law then it seems to me that an important battle - of mutual compassion and respect for one another as human beings, i.e. the importance of wearing veils to some, the upset this causes others - has already been lost.

 

[Deckerd]

You could say that of any law. The one saying women can vote, for instance.

 

[Rii]

You could say that of any law. The one saying women can vote, for instance.

Of course. I'm not sure what's wrong with 'make as few laws as possible' as a general rule.

Democracy is overrated anyway.

Hypothetically, I would probably support a referendum removing men from the democratic process for a century or so. Just out of curiousity, you understand.

 

[Pingfah]

I promise you a number of these women don't have a problem with wearing veals.

Indeed, I tried it myself once, but the gravy kept getting in my eyes.

 

[iguana_tonante]

 

[Kestra]

No, your idea of freedom. The American (and anglo-saxon......) view on religions is not universal.

BTW : laïcité

Wait, so does French secularism mean that there are no public displays of religion whatsoever?

Don't be silly. The only thing they're banning is a black blanket over a woman's head with an eye slit. Any sane government would do the same.

I'm not being silly. I'm genuinely trying to figure out where she's coming from, because she keeps talking about French secularism in relation to this. I don't get if it's a security issue, or a human rights issue, or a religious/secular issue. Or if it's being legislated as one, and supported for other reasons.

 

[cultcross]

But registered by who and to whom ? This is nonsense (and particularly uninformed)

Yup, to take a quote from you

you just don't get it

French people may not live in the holy land of liberty, but not even in France the government keeps track on individuals religious belonings. Nor anywhere in Europe.

Britain can't be in Europe after all then. Religion is on the census, and our Home Office takes the view that equality of service delivery is best managed by asking everyone their ethnicity. The logic being, if it's not recorded, you're placing 100% faith in the equality of your service because there's no way to audit it.

 

[Shaytan]

I'm not being silly. I'm genuinely trying to figure out where she's coming from, because she keeps talking about French secularism in relation to this. I don't get if it's a security issue, or a human rights issue, or a religious/secular issue. Or if it's being legislated as one, and supported for other reasons.

I d'say the 3 reasons.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I have just read that Syria has banned full face veils from its universities.

The higher education minister told reporters that the practice of wearing the veil ran counter to the academic values and the traditions of Syrian universities.

 

[T'Girl]

Here is why it isn't banned here...

And I should care because ? The American position on religions look silly seen from here you know.

I'm sorry? The American position that you won't be forced to practice behind closed doors?

It's called taking away freedom (one of the original reasons Europeans started moving to what would become the United States). The government is sticking it's nose into a place it doesn't belong and telling people "Oh no no no, you can't wear that in public! It has religious connotations!! OUTLAWED!!!"

If this mode of dress had no religious connotations, let say it was just a current fashion item being wore by high class women in Paris, would the French government be banning it? Doubtful.

It's not what's in the text. The text says that you can't hide your face, that's all.

So, overly large sunglasses are banned? What about face masks next time a bad flu runs through France?


A couple of years ago when I was working for a package delivery service, one of my drop offs was a mosque. Just prior to entering, I would put down the packages and tie a large bandanna over my hair, button up my shirt to my throat. pick up my delivery and walk inside. No one told me to do this, in America this is called respect, in France, criminal activity? I'd do the same for the synagogues too except for the buttons, churches just walked in casual.

The US government would have no business telling me one way or the other, why would the French people put up with this? If you want to pass a law protecting women who choose not to wear, great. Otherwise you're the religious fashion police.

 

[Shaytan]

Here is why it isn't banned here...

And I should care because ? The American position on religions look silly seen from here you know.

I'm sorry? The American position that you won't be forced to practice behind closed doors?

We're not forced to practice behind closed doors, we don't want to practice in public. You can't take away a "freedom" that we don't want in the first place
Think about your history, think about my history maybe you will see why we're different.

If this mode of dress had no religious connotations, let say it was just a current fashion item being wore by high class women in Paris, would the French government be banning it? Doubtful.

*shrug*
"High class women" have the courtesy to not hide their face when they interact in society. It's called common sense.

So, overly large sunglasses are banned? What about face masks next time a bad flu runs through France?

No. The text provides exceptions.

A couple of years ago when I was working for a package delivery service, one of my drop offs was a mosque. Just prior to entering, I would put down the packages and tie a large bandanna over my hair, button up my shirt to my throat. pick up my delivery and walk inside. No one told me to do this, in America this is called respect, in France, criminal activity? I'd do the same for the synagogues too except for the buttons, churches just walked in casual.

You're stupid. A church, a mosque etc are considerate private places where you practice your religion.
When you enter a mosque you respect the religion, when you're in the street, you respect the laws of the République, end of the story.

The US government would have no business telling me one way or the other, why would the French people put up with this?

Because we're not American ?

 

[Stardate]

Didn't one of the terrorist subject in planing the second London bombing flee to Italy wearing his wife burqa.
Come on guys. Banning people hiding their faces in public isent discriminatory against Muslims or any folks. It is common sense.

 

[Miss Chicken]

There are places were women shouldn't have their faces covered.

At airports there should be female custom officers who check on the identity of women wearing burqas. People shouldn't be allowed into banks with their faces covered etc, etc.

However if there is no security issue involved women should be allowed to cover their faces if they choose to do so.

 

[Tulin]

I've never understood why(here in Australia anyway)there are signs telling motorcyclists to remove their helmets before they enter a bank, yet there is nothing to tell muslim women to show their faces.

This is discriminatory against motor bike riders. Are they being racially profiled with the assumption that they are more likely to rob banks than "devout and moral" muslim women?

But then, the Australian government has been practicing reverse racism for decades. They give pensions to people who can prove they have one 32nd aboriginal blood in them. I have always thought this was engendering non-empowerment, as if to say "Because you have indigineous blood we understand your drive to do well in life is hindered so we are forced to take care of you financially".