Muslimwoman said:
Great to see they decided to simply dictate dress code in a democratic country, based on a load of bigoted BS.
you are still missing the point on this. they are not dictating dress code - they are banning FACE COVERING, not modest or islamic dress. i don't like the way the french do things, but you have to understand that their state religion is "laicité" - which is not exactly secularism. "laicité" is constitutional and therefore democratic within the french system. it tolerates no challenges from other religions, hence the generally conciliatory attitude of most of the religions in france. basically, it is clear who's boss - they are trying to penalise "uppityness", not islam. it just so happens that it's the uppityness of 2,000 islamist women in this case. i would go so far to say that the attitude of the french state is "cultural". in the uk we do not define "what is british" by statute - the french do. they have a "roman law" system - which basically differs from the british "common law" system (which is how both shari'a and halakhah operate, incidentally) which says:
IF THE LAW DON'T SAY IT'S OK, IT'S FORBIDDEN.
common law says:
IF THE LAW DON'T SPECIFICALLY FORBID IT, IT'S OK.
to go against this is basically going against the entire french constitutional system, which you might not like, but is fairer than, say, that of some other countries i might mention.
Saltmeister said:
People are offended by Christianity and want it out of schools and have replaced traditional Christmas festivities with other things.
people are always saying this, but it always comes down to some idiot in a local council worrying that someone's going to take offence and pre-emptively cringing. when it is investigated, the local non-christians always, always, ALWAYS say "what? what are you on about? we've got no issue with it!" - this is NOT, however, the case with face covering, which a lot of people, both religious and non-religious, ARE offended by and can say why clearly and distinctly, in terms which do *not* require the backing of "personal choice". this issue is NOT about "personal choice", but about the social norms of a liberal democracy, which both france and the UK are, for all that they go about things very differently. in a liberal democracy, you cannot wander down the street naked and you cannot hide your face when engaging in any kind of official interaction. many people dislike this, but it is an inescapable conclusion. some french officials are, privately, saying that they don't quite know what they're going to do with rich saudi lady tourists going shopping at upmarket clothes shops - but i say if they let these people off, they are nothing but hypocrites. either there's a principle at stake, or there ain't - and this is, as many people fear, simply a way to bash muslims, which i do NOT approve of.
People were making fun of Jesus long before Mohammed.
and until we can make fun of muhammad, islam will not have really grown up as a civilisation, in my opinion.
it is a sad day, but i am of the opinion that if that other non-negotiable of liberal democracy, free speech is to be preserved in any meaningfulness, Qur'an-burning will have to join holocaust denial as an act of permitted ideological protest, although society will, i hope, continue to draw the appropriate conclusions about the sort of people who would engage in either activity. i wouldn't associate with such people and i would criticise and condemn these practices in the strongest manner possible, but i could not in conscience outlaw them, any more than i feel people are entitled to rescind what i consider to be an implicit responsibility to show their faces when interacting with others.
b'shalom
bananabrain
