French lawmakers overwhelmingly back veil ban

[Humus]

It's not that easy. There are absolute limits to one's general freedom of speech. Grievous insults, racism, libel etc can all be prosecuted in most western states. And then there are further limits that are imposed in particular situations, like school or court. You can't just say what you want at any one time.

There's a huge difference though between wearing a scarf and yelling insults in the face of a police officer.

Freedom of religion goes a long way but again it is not absolute. You'll find that many more people will find your 'Jesus saves' T-shirt acceptable than something depicting a satanic ritual. But you don't need to go to such extremes to find objectionable content. For instance, imams in some strains of islam somehow have the impression that the Quran orders them to preach that homosexuals are lower than pigs and deserve death. Such statements are really not compatible with a modern society and should not be protected by freedom of religion.

People have been wearing offensive t-shirts for ages now. It's nothing new, and is a non-issue. Nazi and racial propaganda isn't compatible with modern society either. So should we stop them from expressing their views? No. They have their freedom of speech too, regardless how uncomfortable their views are. Such problem are solved by bringing it into the public room, not be banning it and taking it underground. Open debate is always the best place to fight it.

 

[oi]

Well I'll just start by saying that I agree with Florin. And Humus:

The french view is wrong cause it violates the human rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Constitution comes first, majority second.

In France, the constitution gives the state the right to stop any religion from interefering with state governed institutions.

I'll skip repeating what Florin's already said and go directly to my conspirational theory which I thought about after first hearing this. Democracy is really just turning into the new age religion of the western world, eventually replacing what we know as religion today. We're only allowed freedom within a democracy as long as it doesn't go against democratic values, just as people in Iran are free and have equal rights, as long as they don't go against the teachings of the Koran. We've already replaced religion with democracy in school as being the 'right' thing and how we all should live. We don't wage war in the name of god, but rather in the name of democracy. Nations call themself democratic while still having severe lack of equality between gender, race, culture, age and the list continues. Pretty much the same as nations have used religion as a means of being the 'good guy', but still abusing their citizens in the name of god. Democracy as we know it today really is a westernized concept, and we assume that it's the best thing for everyone because, well, we simply are superior and know better than everybody else. Who cares that people of different parts of the world have differing cultural heritage and social capital. Since democracy is the ideal system for us, and we obviously know better than everybody else, then lets just spread democracy as the new religion, since that's what it essentially is.

-end rant-

And if we go back to France again, exactly why should we allow religious symbols when we don't allow all kinds of political symbols? In reality, both are a matter of choice, and I don't see how anyone really can rationalize discriminating one kind of belief -politics- while allowing another -religion-. I've read plenty of democractic definitions and almost none which is newly written specifically mentions religious freedom as a human right, although it's still written in pretty much everyones constitution. When religion starts interfering with democratic rights, in this case education, I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to stop it.

Democracy is after all pretty much a bullshit system where it's incredibly easy for contradictions to pop up. There are loads of situations where you'll have to chose between discrimination and going against the concept of 'one person, one vote'. That, obviously, doesn't have mean that I think we should go back to oligarchy or monarchy, just that I'm getting kinda tired of people hailing democracy as the ultimate system and claiming that some things are undemocratic, when in reality it depends on from what direction you're looking at it. And yes, I fall into that trap all the time too

[disclaimer] I don't necessarily agree with everything I write all the time, I just enjoy observing heh.

Edit: Tried to clear some stuff up and some stuff which came out wrong, which isn't easy hehe.

 

[Humus]

That's why we need a republic according to the old definition where rights come before the decision of majority. No majority should be able to strip me from a basic set of rights, of which freedom of religion is one.

Regarding political symbols, they should of course be allowed too. Like any other opinion or preference they should be allowed to be expressed.

Plus, I still don't see how a friggin scarf or cross around the neck is interfering with education.

Not to mention how much perspective you lose if you're stripping people from their religion. I grew up as a JW, and had many long and interesting discussions with pentecostalists, other christians and atheists at school. It never hurt the education one bit, but it allowed me and them to judge our own stances. That's a lot better than just growing up to accept whatever you was taught as a kid IMHO.

 

[oi]

It's not that simple. You can't guarantee that everyone will be allowed to have their own basic rights, because some of those basic rights will go against other peoples basic rights. Would we allow a religion where you sacrifice humans? No, obviously not. But then we're limiting those madmen's freedom, and by doing that we're discriminating a minority because a majority has decided that what they're doing is wrong. As I said earlier, you're only free as long as you stay within the democratic system, which will limit your basic rights to what is accepted by the majority. Hence a system like you're proposing is still ruled by majority, and it will be more important than individual freedom. Individual freedom can never have absolute rule above the majority, because then a democratic system wouldn't work.

 

[RussSchultz]

Plus, I still don't see how a friggin scarf or cross around the neck is interfering with education.

Its an interesting question, with a number of nuances.

Many schools (even public) in the US, for example, are moving to uniforms, to remove "distractions" and promote equality among the students. The idea being, if they don't worry about fashion (since every body is wearing the same thing), then its one less thing to separate people and everybody can concentrate on whats important at school--learning.

Of course, in the end, it likely doesn't matter, because your wealth or hygiene won't be hidden by uniforms.

The next reason for banning all religious items would be because of the disruption they could cause, or the slippery slope. Suppose it isn't a head scarf the person wants to wear, but a full on burqua? Or they want to wear a full tribal headdress and/or warbonnet (for Native Americans, for example), or even decide to declare their own religion to be Satanist and wear horribly offensive clothing to the rest of the majority.

The simple solution is the one that "tramples" rights of speech and religion, banning everything.

 

[Florin]

There's a huge difference though between wearing a scarf and yelling insults in the face of a police officer.

Absolutely. The insults merely serve to illustrate that there are codified limits to the freedom of speech.

People have been wearing offensive t-shirts for ages now. It's nothing new, and is a non-issue.

It is in many schools. Or courts. Or churches. In such environments offensive t-shirts may just get you escorted to the door. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Nazi and racial propaganda isn't compatible with modern society either. So should we stop them from expressing their views? No. They have their freedom of speech too, regardless how uncomfortable their views are.

Agreed, but school isn't necessarily the best place for that. I think that it is reasonable that a school board, parents, or even the state can object to them flaunting their views at school.

Consider all the other children. They can't just get up and leave if they feel offended. After all, law dictates that they must attend school. Why should they forcibly be subjected to other people's political and religious beliefs, which have nothing to do with the skills they're there to learn.

Such problem are solved by bringing it into the public room, not be banning it and taking it underground. Open debate is always the best place to fight it.

They're welcome to express their ideas. But they should do it in their own time. Or in the time that schools dedicate to discussion about politics and religion. Debate is indeed a skill that should be trained at school.

 

[oi]

Not to mention how much perspective you lose if you're stripping people from their religion. I grew up as a JW, and had many long and interesting discussions with pentecostalists, other christians and atheists at school. It never hurt the education one bit, but it allowed me and them to judge our own stances. That's a lot better than just growing up to accept whatever you was taught as a kid IMHO.

Why wouldn't you be able to discuss religion without wearing a cross? It's not like they're totally removing religion from school. What they're doing shouldn't have any effect on what they're taught about religion just because none of the students are allowed to show what religion they belong to.

Edit: With regards to school and pedagogy, I'd argue that it's more educational to discuss subjects such as religion from another point of view than your own. Because that way you'd learn to look with the eyes of a belief that you're not originally as familiar with as your own. I don't know how they do it at other places, but when I went to highschool we never had seminars that let us argue our own views. Instead we were given views that we were supposed to defend and could have to attack what we saw as 'right' in reality. I find that much better than keeping your view limited to one way of thinking.

 

[epicstruggle]

I got a few simple question id like to have answered.

Is the veil/burqa something that is absolutely required for a woman to be a muslim. Or is it a cultural thing.

Same with the skullcap for jews. Is it a requirement to be a jew or a cultural thing.

With hindus, arranged marriages are cultural not religious. So we can be hindus and not have to marrie according to what others say.

later,
epic

 

[oi]

Is the veil/burqa something that is absolutely required for a woman to be a muslim. Or is it a cultural thing.

It's requierd by conservative followers of Islam, but the reformist branch doesn't see it as a must. It's the main power struggle in Iran at the moment. Some want to keep the old ways while some want to modernize the meaning of what's written in their holy book.

 

[epicstruggle]

Is the veil/burqa something that is absolutely required for a woman to be a muslim. Or is it a cultural thing.

It's requierd by conservative followers of Islam, but the reformist branch doesn't see it as a must. It's the main power struggle in Iran at the moment. Some want to keep the old ways while some want to modernize the meaning of what's written in their holy book.

So its in the koran that a woman must cover herself up?

later,
epic

 

[L233]

Is the veil/burqa something that is absolutely required for a woman to be a muslim. Or is it a cultural thing.

No, it's not an absolute requirement. Women are required ot dress decently but AFAIK "decently" isn't really specified.

There is a part of the Quran that contains some sort of anecdotic stories about the life of the prophet. There is one story about one of his wifes having beautiful long hair. Long hair is seen as a strong expression of femininity in the Arab world (and I have been told that in fact, long hair is a major turn on for most Arab males) and the prophet's wife was always being "approached" by men and had men drooling all over her when she was in public.

So one day she complained to the prophet about the situation and instead of sending a bunch of goons to kick those men's asses he suggested that it might be a good idea for her to simply cover her hair when she's in public.

Seems like an innocent enough story but over the centuries, muslim scholars have connected the dots and have established that dressing "decently" involves covering the hair.

Then there are of course several degrees of radicalism to this. Fundy muslim scholers have established that in fact pretty much every part of a woman's body is indecent and thus the chador.

AFAIK there is no direct passage in the Quran that commands women to cover their hair. Well, that's at least what a Muslim friend of mine told me and I hope he wasn't bullshitting me.

So yeah, seems more like a cultural thing to me.

 

[oi]

I don't know, haven't read it. I would assume however that it's not openly stating that they have to, since people are arguing that it's a misinterpretion and should be changed. I just know that it's not requierd by all branches of Islam to hide your body.

However I seem to remember that one of the reasons that women should be covered is because they shouldn't 'distract' men with their beauty, or something along those lines. And if that's the only reason, which I have no idea if it is, then it surely is a statement which can have different interpretions.

Edit: Basically what L233 said

 

[epicstruggle]

from abcnews.com

The Islamic imperative for veiling stems from a passage in the Koran that states: "Say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty. They should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their ornaments."

But within Islam, the issue of veiling is a subject for considerable debate. Some Islamic experts say the text is open to interpretations, which has accounted for the diversity of veiling traditions across the Islamic world.

"Although the Koran does call upon women to cover their heads, the measures change from tradition to tradition," says Ibrahim Kalin, an Islamic scholar and fellow at George Washington University. "The burqa in particular, is part of local traditions in different parts of the world. While the Koran does not obliterate the need for hijab, Muslim women have a choice based on their circumstances. But Koranic injunctions definitely call for modesty in dressing."

If im reading this right, the burqa is _not_ a requirement.

later,
epic

 

[THe_KELRaTH]

Not too long ago I watched a TV documentary on Afghanistan after the war. In interviews many of the women didnt want to cover their face etc but if they opposed the will of the Taliban male controlled areas they would be either killed or seriously mutilated (branding irons on face etc) . In both cases it would be done outside in public area for all to see. This would happen if for example the female accidentally showed an ankle.
Now that the Talibans are gone many no longer wear a veil.

 

[epicstruggle]

Not too long ago I watched a TV documentary on Afghanistan after the war. In interviews many of the women didnt want to cover their face etc but if they opposed the will of the Taliban male controlled areas they would be either killed or seriously mutilated (branding irons on face etc) . In both cases it would be done outside in public area for all to see. This would happen if for example the female accidentally showed an ankle.
Now that the Talibans are gone many no longer wear a veil.

I remember watching a cnn documentary on afghan years before the afghan war. one of the sadest part was taliban soldiers raping small children right after killing their mother. And killing women for teaching their children. Im glad we finally took those bastards out of power. Too bad we didnt have the backbone to do it years earlier.

later,
epic
edit: found the link to cnn's presents show
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/index.veil.html
the 3 girls watched their mother being shot, and who spent days with the soldiers.

Children raise their hands after being asked if any of them have had their parents killed by the Taliban. Of these children, seven out of 10 had lost a parent. A recent United Nations Children's Fund report says that 72 percent of Afghan children have lost a relative in the last four years of fighting.

In Kabul, Shah left her crew behind and proceeded alone, posing as an ordinary Afghan woman but continued to film with a hidden camera underneath her burqa, a body-length veil that adult women in Afghanistan are required to wear. She visited a filthy hospital for women with few doctors. The Taliban don't want women to work as doctors, but they also don't want male physicians to see women and there are few female doctors left in the country. The country now has one of the highest infant and maternal mortality rates in the world.

later,
epic

 

[Fred]

Again, I might find the shawl offensive, since its a religious symbol, and being say a satanist I might find it counter to my own beliefs.

Logically the problem is identical to if I was in a nudist religion and felt the need to constantly expose myself.

Ultimately, freedom of religion is a lower priority than seperation of church and state.

As far as losing the cultural heritage, I know you are correct. Ultimately things always evolve, that doesn't stop me from raging against a direction I feel is less comfortable than the one before. (See evolution from Roman civilization to the Dark ages for instance) Those forces that resist 'cultural evolution' are not going to go away, nor are they necessarily 'wrong' in acting that way.

 

[Humus]

It's not that simple. You can't guarantee that everyone will be allowed to have their own basic rights, because some of those basic rights will go against other peoples basic rights. Would we allow a religion where you sacrifice humans? No, obviously not. But then we're limiting those madmen's freedom, and by doing that we're discriminating a minority because a majority has decided that what they're doing is wrong. As I said earlier, you're only free as long as you stay within the democratic system, which will limit your basic rights to what is accepted by the majority. Hence a system like you're proposing is still ruled by majority, and it will be more important than individual freedom. Individual freedom can never have absolute rule above the majority, because then a democratic system wouldn't work.

One of the basic rights is the right to your life. You are free to have a religion or opinion in which you think someone else deserve to die. But you have no right to kill somebody. Rights only extend so far as they doesn't interfer with other people's rights.

 

[Humus]

The next reason for banning all religious items would be because of the disruption they could cause, or the slippery slope. Suppose it isn't a head scarf the person wants to wear, but a full on burqua? Or they want to wear a full tribal headdress and/or warbonnet (for Native Americans, for example), or even decide to declare their own religion to be Satanist and wear horribly offensive clothing to the rest of the majority.

The simple solution is the one that "tramples" rights of speech and religion, banning everything.

But it's an overreaction. You're banning things that aren't even a problem. You could argue with the same logic that to stop drunk driving we should just not let anyone drive a car.

 

[Humus]

People have been wearing offensive t-shirts for ages now. It's nothing new, and is a non-issue.

It is in many schools. Or courts. Or churches. In such environments offensive t-shirts may just get you escorted to the door. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

[/quote]

Well, I don't see a problem with that either, especially not in private churches as it's up to the church to decide who's welcome. Or if a burqa makes identification impossible. Such organisatorical measures at local level are ok if it would otherwise be disturbing in some way. But I don't think it's right to make it a law. I can see the merit of demanding someone to stop if he carries a 3 meter wodden cross to school saying it's just him expressing his views. But if he just have a 1cm metal cross hanging around his neck, then it's not causing any problem, and shouldn't be stopped.

 

[Humus]

Why wouldn't you be able to discuss religion without wearing a cross? It's not like they're totally removing religion from school. What they're doing shouldn't have any effect on what they're taught about religion just because none of the students are allowed to show what religion they belong to.

Well, I'm talking mostly about debate during breaks, and not at lecture time. Of course a cross isn't critical to a discussion, but openly showing your views raises questions and encourages debate. Not that it's neccesarily a requirement either, I have personally never carried anything of that sort, though some of my friends in school used to carry a cross. I've seen some muslims carrying a scarf. I never saw any problems rising from that. At uni there are some people you see from time to time that dress a little like satanists, though they are just unix hackers.