France and their headscarfs
#21
Tancred.

Its odd that whilst attempting to argue a point about assimilation, you should mention the Native Americans and how they were expected to integrate into European culture, without stopping to consider the fact that the native Americans were not the immigrants!

In that example, the native American nations were the original inhabitants (like the French today) and the European colonists were the outside force imposing their laws upon the original inhabitants (like the Muslims in France).

If anything, the example of the Native Americans highlights perfectly the threat which many Europeans (and quite a few American observers) are beginning to feel with regards to the enourmous amount of Muslim immigrants now in Europe. The European colonists had no intention of conformuing to the pre existing American culture. By their standards it was a backwards culture which needed to be gotten rid of.

Many Muslim clerics in Europe have already made similar remarks calling for Muslim laws to be respected, or even implemented into European nations.

It may not seem like much of a threat to you now, but how many Native Americans I wonder considered the first few thousand settlers in the new world to be the threat they most certainly were?

How many decades do you suppose it will take before Europe becomes the stage for yet another religous war if the immigrants refuse point blank to become Europeans?

Also.

I find it odd that you make reference to the nazi's. What exactly does the flawed example of Poland, and the Lebensraum have to do with France enforcing its tradition of secularism in its state institutions?

These Muslims are not being denied anything. They are simply being ordered to conform to the same dress code that exists for all other French children.

If they have a problem with that, then there are other options for them. They can put their children into private schools as many French parents already do, they can accept that in France, all children wear the same uniform to even out their social differences, or if this is such a problem for them, they can leave France and go and live in a Muslim nation.
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#22
Quote:Originally posted by moif
Venefice.
No worries. I am not of the opinion that you are arrogant or mean.

Thanks Moif, I needed the reassurance.

I think Americans are shocked by this idea because freedom of religion was and is one of our foundational principles. To imagine living in a country where we are not allowed to practise our religious beliefs, both * * * * * *dly and inwardly is almost impossible to imagine. The puritans and the pilgrims (for example) came over to America because they were being persecuted in Europe. They were escaping cultures where they weren't allowed to dress differently from the rest of society. They were belittled, ridiculed and many were killed for their religous beliefs. They wanted the freedom to raise their children in an environment where they were safe from this type of persecution. So they came to America.

This thread of religious freedom, and freedom in general, as Rain pointed out, runs throughout American society. It is my God-Given-Right to worship as prescribed by my religon or denomination. I beleive that when Society or Government beleive they have the power to make me change the way I worship, they are wrong.

As a member of society, I believe that if I allow the government to whittle away at another person's freedoms that mine will be the next to be sacrificed "for the greater good". It seems to me that when the gov't does things "for the greater good", that it is code for "we don't have a good reason, so we are making one up". I have to fiercely protect the rights of others to ensure that my rights are protected as well.

BTW, why is out-ward being censored as a bad word?
Confusedun: Whoo Hoo! Firefly on Scifi Friday: 7pm EST Confusedun:
Reply
#23
* * * * * *dly? dunno... maybe its a bad word?

Venefice.

I understand that, but the fact is, all laws are made for the greater good...
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#24
Quote:Originally posted by moif
* * * * * *dly? dunno... maybe its a bad word?


Because there is an internet game called o-u-t-w-a-r that we had a problem with. The manner in which people increase their rank is by getting others to click on links. This resulted in a number of false-links for the sole purpose of getting others to click on them. We therefor banned the word, and we haven't seen any problems since.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#25
Wow. I feel......torn.

I wholeheartedly agree with Moif's spin on the harm religion has caused, and feel the need to make a nod of agreement to that view.

I also, however, and almost as strongly, feel that Veneifce's stnce on freedom of religion and of expression is a basic foundation of a free society, and banning of the trappings of faith is overly intrusive.

And, I must second Bacchus' opinion of getting the govenrment involved. There is seldom a better way to screw up social evolution than to sic the legislature on it.

And, as an American whose (personal) ancestors are of five countries and three major religions, I don't like the idea of government forcing "assimilation." I think this occurs naturally over generations, an allows each culture to become part of their new home, but maintain some unique factors that make life interesting.

Not that it's flawless. The city I work in has a Catholic church each for the French (Sacred Heart), the Irish (St Patrick's), the Italians (Holy Rosary), and the Spanish (St Mary's) and they won't go to each other's churches. It's really funny, actually. Considering the fact that their children almost always marry into one of the other groups. Which is why I'm Franco- Irish- Scottish- German- Finnish. Apparently, their own ethnic groups were good enough to worship with, but not good enough to marry.
Wrestling Darwin on a daily basis.

"Question boldly even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#26
Quote:Originally posted by moif

In that example, the native American nations were the original inhabitants (like the French today) and the European colonists were the outside force imposing their laws upon the original inhabitants (like the Muslims in France).

....

Many Muslim clerics in Europe have already made similar remarks calling for Muslim laws to be respected, or even implemented into European nations.

....

How many decades do you suppose it will take before Europe becomes the stage for yet another religous war if the immigrants refuse point blank to become Europeans?



You actually make a good point about the Native Americans not being the immigrants. But what do you think would have been ideal in that situation? The Natives becoming more like the immigrants, the Immigrants becoming more like the Natives? No. IMHO, the way forward would have been to accept and tolerate the different cultures, and to try to find a way for these to co-exist in harmony. Beiung all the same is boring, but having many cultures in one country in wonderful.

And what makes us Europeans? The fact that we're not Muslim? The fact that many people pretend to be Christian or Catholic? When are Muslim immigrants going to be considered Europeans? By your argument it seems that they will only be considered European when they relinquish their religion or religious practices and become more like us, whatever that may be.

Quote:Originally posted by moif

These Muslims are not being denied anything. They are simply being ordered to conform to the same dress code that exists for all other French children.

If they have a problem with that, then there are other options for them. They can put their children into private schools as many French parents already do, they can accept that in France, all children wear the same uniform to even out their social differences, or if this is such a problem for them, they can leave France and go and live in a Muslim nation.


Evening out social differences is not the same as asking people to relinquish religious beliefs. Try and see it from the other side - if you were a Christian living in a Muslim country. Would you try to assimilate yourself, or would you pursue your beliefs and practices in spite of your environment?
Reply
#27
Moif, if we really want to get over-technical, we could say that the Native-Americans weren't originally from North America to begin with, having migrated from Asia (if archaeologists are correct in their theories). We could also get over-technical, and say that a large part of the French population today is not descended from those people who originally inhabited France, having gotten rid of or kicked out the Celtic Galls and Romans who lived there hundreds of years prior.

So yes, my arguments were flawed and odd. Just like me. Yet, my point was not focusing on which group came first or second, but rather upon which group was in the powerful position to pass descrimininatory laws or not. In that light, I think my examples still have some merit.

And once again, I must heartily concur with what Venefice and Rain just said.
Reply
#28
Quote:Originally posted by tancred
And once again, I must heartily concur with what Venefice and Rain just said.


hey...thanks Smile
Reply
#29
Quote:Originally posted by Rain
You actually make a good point about the Native Americans not being the immigrants. But what do you think would have been ideal in that situation? The Natives becoming more like the immigrants, the Immigrants becoming more like the Natives? No. IMHO, the way forward would have been to accept and tolerate the different cultures, and to try to find a way for these to co-exist in harmony. Beiung all the same is boring, but having many cultures in one country in wonderful.

Is it? some cultures mesh well, others don't. As I've already pointed out, Yugoslavia was considered a wonderful example of various cultures existing within one nation.

But this is besides the point. No one is saying that theMuslims cannot exist as a culture in France. They are welcome to continue to do so, but they must accept French tradition and culture first and foremost. France is a nation. The requirements of its general population come before the requirements of its minorities. This is the same in every nation on the planet.

I suspect the reason why France has attracted so much attention over this ruling has more to do with Francophobia than with any great concern for religous freedom.


Quote:Originally posted by Rain
And what makes us Europeans? The fact that we're not Muslim? The fact that many people pretend to be Christian or Catholic? When are Muslim immigrants going to be considered Europeans? By your argument it seems that they will only be considered European when they relinquish their religion or religious practices and become more like us, whatever that may be.

I have not made that argument.

Any one born in Europe is European, whether they are Muslims or the children of immigrants or any other.


Quote:Originally posted by Rain
Evening out social differences is not the same as asking people to relinquish religious beliefs.


No one has asked the Muslims to relinquish their religous beliefs. They have only been told to conform to the dress code which all French people are subject too.

Why should one religous group be granted a privilege denied to generations of French people? Why does being Muslim grant any one immunity from a law?



Quote:Originally posted by Rain
Try and see it from the other side - if you were a Christian living in a Muslim country. Would you try to assimilate yourself, or would you pursue your beliefs and practices in spite of your environment?


I would obey the laws of the nation, what ever they were. If I was unable to do so, for reasons of personal belief or what ever, then I would not travel to that nation.
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#30
So, in order to maintain peace you are agrivating at least one religious group that there was little prior quarrle with....

Was it ever though of why these feuds like those of Cosovo start? Becuase one group tries to dominate the the other and assimilate them you probably have something to do with it.

To be honest I think Europeans are over reacting. Denmark has around 5% immergrants, compared to Australia where over 70% of the country has at least one parent born over seas if not being born over seas themselves, this is very small. There have yet to be any laws nessicary in Austrlaia to prevent some kind of minority subversion so I fail to see how much of Europe is under any real threat.
Reply
#31
Regarding the question of whether peace should take precedence over freedom or vice versa, isn't this a bit of a tautology. Without peace and a working legal system you can't offer any real freedoms. So obvioulsy peace must take precedence. It has been mentioned that the Qu'ran gives Muslims the right to keep slaves. The Qu'ran also states that the witness born by a man before court weighs 4 times that which a woman bears. Such statements are in blatant contradiction to modern concepts of equality. Equally, if a Mulsim man rapes a non muslim woman then the punishment is less than if she were a Mulsim. If a Mulsim steals from a non Mulim then the punishment is lesser than if he steals from a fellow Muslim. The Quran provides a Mulsim with no mechanism for leaving Islam and taking another religion if none. He can be punished for just trying. And worse still, anybody can become a Mulsim simply by saying 'Alluha Aqbar' in the presence of witnesses. So a good many of us may be Mulsims without knowing it and may be unable to undo our error. If Muslims wish to apply such laws among each other in religious courts then there is no problem. After all, nobody has to be a muslim and so nobody has to accept the ruling of such a court. But if they try to apply such laws in civil courts you've got a real problem. Most moderate muslims accept this and don't inists on Quranic laws. There are also ultra-weird passages in the Bible and the Talmud and in Buddhist and Hindu scriptures but most modern Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus pass these aside with a shrug. If I were to demand the right to stone homosexuals and yeah, stone people who eat shellfish and meat from the same plate I think the law would be right to place the interests of others above my religious freedoms. The problem is that many radical muslims think civil and religious law should be one and the same and derived entirely from Quranic teaching. Wearing headscarves is percieved to be but the tip of the iceberg of this thinking and I think the French are quite right to say that civil law stands above religious law with no exceptions.
Reply
#32
Quote:Originally posted by Venefice
I think Americans are shocked by this idea because freedom of religion was and is one of our foundational principles. To imagine living in a country where we are not allowed to practise our religious beliefs, both

I am not into American bashing no more than I like European bashing, but every society is open in some respects and intolerant in others. America may be tolerant towards other religions but is politically intolerant. As far as I know, communists have not been compensated for the excesses of McCartyism or even been offered a formal apology. Communists still have a tough ride in modern America. A friend of mine from East Germany inadvertently told USA immigration officials he was a communist - thinking no wrong - and was exposed to an hour of cross examination and had all his luggage unpacked. As far as I know, the French don't do that to Muslims yet.
Reply
#33
Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
So, in order to maintain peace you are agrivating at least one religious group that there was little prior quarrle with....


Perhaps you'd care to re read my previous posts DB? It seems that you are over looking the already mentioned problems which Europe has seen regarding the rise of anti semitism in France. Investigations show that 95% of anti Jewish crimes are caused by Muslims.

And even in Denmark, where the rise in anti semitism is not so steep, the upsurge in national sentiment was generated by a series of gang rapes which took place over the course of 2000 and 2001. Gang rapes performed by young Muslim men against Danish girls and women.

The whole point of what I'm saying is that Europe is moving dangerously close to a back lash against a muslim culture which is seen widely as antagonstic towards European culture.


Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
Was it ever though of why these feuds like those of Cosovo start? Becuase one group tries to dominate the the other and assimilate them you probably have something to do with it.


The massacres in Kosovo, and previously in Bosnia occured when the larger group attacked the smaller in order to remove them from the land. The Christians of Serbia and Kroatia both targetted the Muslims because they saw them as a threat.

It is this that the French wish to avoid.


Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
To be honest I think Europeans are over reacting. Denmark has around 5% immergrants, compared to Australia where over 70% of the country has at least one parent born over seas if not being born over seas themselves, this is very small. There have yet to be any laws nessicary in Austrlaia to prevent some kind of minority subversion so I fail to see how much of Europe is under any real threat.


Australia is a nation founded on immigration. Denmark is not.

Also. Australia is huge, and has a lot of space. Denmark does not.

Also. Australia is a very difficult nation to gain entrance into. Up until the last election, Denmark was not.

editted to add...

And the danger of a war breaking out in Australia is not as likely as a war breaking out in Europe. After all, this is Europe. It may seem peaceful now, but you'll have to look hard to find a place where more blood has been spilled in pointless stupid wars than here...
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#34
If you're going to ban scarves (usually called hijab's in Arabic) then no Santa's should be allowed in shopping centres at Xmas time. No advertising of Easter eggs should be allowed. The French govt needs to step down because the issue they are raising is, in my opinion as a Muslim, totally inappropriate and disrespectful.
So there it is, no scarf, no Santa.
Reply
#35
Shopping centre's are not run by the state.

Also, head scarves have not been banned. Religous artefacts have been forbidden from state institutions.
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#36
CJ sets up some pillows around Moif before she speaks. She doesn't want him to hurt himself when he faints Wink

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Moif on this issue. From what I've read, France not only bans headscarves in state institutions but overly large crosses as well. This is not restricting their freedom to practice whatever religion they choose, it's only enforcing laws they already have. These laws have been in place for many years and those moving into that country needs to abide by those laws. Period.

If a person moves to the US and is allowed to murder a woman in his former country for showing too much skin, are we to allow them the same freedom here? Yes this is extreme, however to me it's similar. Different countries have different laws in place. If you CHOOSE to move to that country, then you'd better be prepared to obey the laws of the land.

The earlier example of the subjugation and assimilation of the American Indians does not work for this argument because as already pointed out, the natives were not the immigrants. They did not choose to come to this country and disobey the laws set up by the Euros, they were here first.
I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird religious cult. -Rita Rudner
Reply
#37
:thud:

Good example though CJ~
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#38
When reading all this, the words "fantasy/reality" hover in my mind. The fantasy...we all live together in peace, dispite vast cultural differences, like that old Disneyland ride "It's a Small Small World". The reality, as population rapidly increases, and different peoples are living closer and closer together, some assimilating must occur to keep peace, and a bit of "monoculture" will arise. I agree with Moif also, but that's not too shocking. Wink I also think of learning from the past, as Moif mentioned, human nature being as flawed as it is.
Reply
#39
I don't understand... these laws already exist moif as you mentioned before or are they are being proposed now which has caused the outcry? :confused:

And are these head scarves y'all are talking about the kind that cover the face as well as head or is it just the simple head covering?

What harm could that do?

Moif, your statistics are scary and I do sympathize and understand your points, but I find this French law offensively chauvenistic since most of those crimes committed I bet were done mostly by men and not the women who are the ones targeted by this ban.

I find it funny/ironic though that wearing head scarves isn't necessarily a Muslim tradition. Many other cultures, Christian & Jewish cultures, wore them at one time. And while the fashion may have fallen out of favor I don't think it came about by any governmental ban.

Or I might be wrong.
:alien: Sci-Fi needs reality TV as much as it needs a Hammer! :mad:
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Team says Landis tested positive during Tour de France RobRoy 1 426 July 28th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Last Post: RobRoy
  Tour de France heads into the mountains RobRoy 1 422 July 13th, 2006, 01:33 PM
Last Post: justdecent
  Places to go in France Eiley 14 920 October 5th, 2003, 05:19 PM
Last Post: Bruna

Forum Jump: