posted
Anna, Islam is a semitic religion, just like Judaism.
And what laws has France passed to stop crimes against Jews whenever there is an uproar over Israel's actions? I don't have a link here, but the last time the Israeli army retaliated in force to a few bombings, there was violent backlash against Jews and synagogues in—you guessed it—France. I'm not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere, but I see people found, arrested, and charged when I see it elsewhere. Basically, the government just looked the other way when it happened.
This ban is going to turn into the same thing: Jews and Muslims alike are now required to break their faith or not get an education, or submit themselves to ridicule and expulsion. What is the government going to do for these people's rights? Nothing.
posted
Leto's right, Anna. France is currently working its way through some pretty strong anti-semitism. Just look at the results of your last election and see who almost got into power. People said that that should have been a wake up call for France, but it doesn't appear to have been. Then people said maybe this will be, again, it doesn't seem to have been. Nobody likes to think that their country is in the wrong, but the French people really need to take a good long look at where they want their country to go.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying France is perfect, far from it. But for people belonging to a country who did a war pretending another country had massive destruction weapon, when it was false, and doesn't feel upset about it, I find all of you pretty arrogant.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the law is a reaction to the un-Frenchness of the significant and growing Muslim minority. I view it as a cultural protectionist measure.
Edit:
Canada didn't participate in the war in Iraq, which was viewed by some Americans as a slap in the face.
quote:I'm not saying France is perfect, far from it. But for people belonging to a country who did a war pretending another country had massive destruction weapon, when it was false, and doesn't feel upset about it, I find all of you pretty arrogant.
How is it arrogant to point out concrete evidence of growing anti-semitism in France or show concern about the limits on relgious freedom being passed there?
Considering France's public statements about the U.S. before the war, I thought we had a "say whatever you want" kind of relationship between our countries.
quote: I think the law is a reaction to the un-Frenchness of the significant and growing Muslim minority. I view it as a cultural protectionist measure.
I know I said I wouldn't respond to anyone but Dagonee, but let me just say that I agree. There's a lot more here than just simple anti-semitism. Secular society vs. religious society, Normalcy versus indecency, Christianity vs. Islam/Judaism, cultural protectionism, the very real problem that Islamicists represent, the very real problems that edit: some Muslims are creating in French society with their anti-semitic/anti-liberalism attitudes. All these things are represented in this law. I don't think it's fair to just willy-nilly throw the charge of anti-semitism at France, as it doesn't address any of these real problems.
If it's fair to shout charges of anti-semitism at the French, then it's fair to charge many Muslims with being anti-French, anti-Christian, anti-Judaica, and intolerant.
posted
The Toronto Star has a decent summary of why the ban is so widely supported.
For you Americans and French folk who choose to read the whole article, you can feel free to either ignore the flagrant Canadian patriotism, or accept that we're the greatest country on earth
>> One reason has to do with France's long history of conflict between religious and secular authorities. For nearly a century and a half after the 1789 French Revolution, the Catholic Church did everything it could to bring down the Republic and restore a monarchy. This bred a fierce strain of anti-church sentiment among those who supported democracy and the Republic.
Over the years the battle went back and forth, satirized in countless French novels, plays and stories about the conflict between the village priest, representing the forces of religion, and the town schoolteacher who represented the forces of secularism.
Although the Catholic Church lost out when a 1905 law separated church and state, the revival of religion today, especially among Muslims, but also among Jews and Christians, has rekindled anti-clerical sentiment among those who fear the secular and democratic values represented by the public school system will be undermined as religion encroaches on the school system. <<
I also think part of the problem is that much of the Muslim minority lives in what essentially amount to ghettos and are generally not very well off. That sort of environment can also foster strong community ties and religious sentiments; even religious fanatacism.
posted
Anna, for the vast majority of us (if not all) pretense was not involved. With the exception of certain members of the government, and possibly excepting all but a few intelligence agents, most of us who supported the war believed that the weapons were there. So what happens to our "arrogance"?
I'd like to respond to the main argument in the thread, but I'm having trouble coming up with an immediate response to Storm Saxon. I've been suffering from that a lot lately.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Twinky, for at least trying to see this dispassionately. Your posts always stand out. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's obvious that religious law in no way trumps governmenent law. We suppress religious law all the time. If you kill someone because your religion says it's ok, you still going to get convicted of murder.
This isn't an issue of whether or not the government should be forced to support religious laws. They obviously shouldn't, unless we want to regard 9/11 as something we should support.
This is a question of tolerance of religious laws. The idea that it was immoral for women to teach men was once considered part of Christianity. If parents refused to have their male children taught in a school that had women teachers, should we force the government to accomodate them? Of course not. We'd violate their religious law in a heartbeat. I have very little sympathy for saying that something is wrong solely because it "restricts" someone's religion.
Does the government have the right to ban religious dress? That depends. Does the government or school administration in some American schools have the right to ban gang colors? If so, why?
I'd say that they do have the right to ban gang colors, because the presence of gang colors specificaly impedes the central function of the school. If the French government could show that wearing religious dress specifically impedes their schools, I think that they would have the right to ban such dress, just as they would gang colors. I don't think that this is the case, however. It seems to me that they are mistaking areligion with anti-religion.
Our default response should be to allow freedom. I don't think that this is evident in this case. It seems to me that the French has targeted religious stuff because it is religious, instead of because of it's direct effects. They are trying to curtail freedom because they don't like the thoughts that the people are having. That's not enlightened. That's the essence of tyranny.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, perhaps I'm still squicked out by Le Pen. I mean, this is the man who said he was bothered by seeing the outlines of mosques on the horizon when he travels through the country, where only church spires should grace the sky. And yet he charged up the polls two years ago. No, he didn't win in the end, but it was still worrisome. I understand that France has a long history of protecting its culture, its language and its secularism. I also think that this is a narrow and dangerous line to walk. It's an idea that's easy to hide behind when you're passing legislature. Mind you, they seem perfectly fine with the idea that immigrants must leave their cultures behind and conform to the French way of living. Perhaps I'm superimposing my own values on them. If everyone knows that in order to live in France you must be a French men than if you have a problem with it, don't go. Maybe that’s fine. Either way, it’s just another reason for me to stay in comfy Canada .
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that this is part of a resurgence of anti-clericism and that, in it's time, anti-clericism was very important for the advance of human freedom. The problem is that people are using pretty much the same tactics that the religious used to promote hatred and prevent freedom. They're fighting against something and using bad means to do so, not fighting for something and uses the principles of this thing.
Of couse, I think that this is at least partially a side-effect of a populist form of government, where, if enough people believe in something, you can, oh I don't know, pass a constitutional amendment, to use might makes right instead of relying on right itself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please note that I'm not saying that anti-semitism isn't a part of the motivation of some French people. I'm also not defending this passage. I think the problem is much deeper than head scarves and yarmulkes. I think fundamentally the problem is intolerance on all sides, Muslim and French, and that somehow they need to learn how to live together so that each can get what they want.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I think that Chirac is trying to make the principle of secularization not just a principle of government, but one of the French public. That's as rejcting of liberalism as what the religious people want to do with the country. Liberalism is first and foremost, allowing people to think what they want. France's very policy of "cultural protectionism", meaning whatever the government defines as what they want French people to be like, is already anti-liberalism.
I agree that there are a lot of important issues here. The rise of fundamentalist religions, especially Muslim, in regions of populist government is a big threat to liberalism. There's a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping Europe that's largely borne on a wave of Islamic immigrants. If people think that abandoning liberalism is the only way to deal with these problems, ok. Just don't tell me that they're protecting liberalism, because that's clearly not what they're doing.
posted
To make my stand clear on this, I'm pro-freedom but largely anti-populist. The problems presented by the rise in fundamentalist Islam is not in the individual beliefs of the people, barring illegal activities, but rather on the growing power of this group of people to impose their views on others (although the children angle is worrying to me too). Might (represented in this case by number of voters) making right is a fundamental problem with democratic systems, and has been recognized as such since Classical times. That's why we have a system of rights in place to, as best we can, check this impulse.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Macchabeus, are you kidding or what ? EVERYONE here knew it was false. The UNO told you it was false. If you choose to trust no one but CNN, you are responsible for your lack of information. Besides, now you know it was false. What do you do about that?
[ February 11, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Americans being called arrogant by a Frenchwoman?
That's hilarious in both directions. If there's a nation with more arrogance and less capability than France, I haven't heard of it. If there's a nation with more arrogance and more capability than the USA, I haven't heard of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and by the way Anna...tell me where anyone offered proof that the claims were false.
Those claims haven't even been issued by anyone to the present. I'm not sure if it's a language barrier or not, but you are mistaken in that claim.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there's a nation with more arrogance and less capability than France, I haven't heard of it. If there's a nation with more arrogance and more capability than the USA, I haven't heard of it.
quote: 1.) Do you oppose the French law? I think you do – you seem to be saying that you oppose not only the French law but also other laws that infringe on people’s rights to wear what they want.
I oppose it, but as I mentioned, I do believe both sides are at fault in things getting to this point.
quote: 2.) Do you think that the analysis I presented in my previous post suffers from the hypocrisy you’ve been talking about? I’m not asking if you agree with my analysis, since it’s clear you don’t, just if you think it is hypocritical.
*fidgets* Hypocrisy was a bad choice of words on my part and I apologize for using it. From your posts, I think you are saying that you believe religion and religious choices have a greater need for, or are worthy of more, protection than non-religious ones. If I am wrong in how I am reading what you wrote, let me know.
My point about hypocrisy was that it was 'hypocritical'(for lack of a better word at the moment) for a person to say that they supported community standards when it conforms to their moral beliefs, but not to support them when they go against their moral, or social beliefs. That is, community morality is all well and good as long as it doesn't effect religious choices.
I think your argument that this standard is not hypocritical is that the idea of religious ideas being special is in a lot of important documents, and is an important component of many civic ideals, so it is therefore understandable that people believe that religion and religious choices should be accorded some kind of special status over non-religious ones.
(edit: My grammar is the suck.)
It may be understandable, but if a person supports a principle for one group, but not the one they belong to, forgive me, but I'm not sure what the proper word is....
quote: If the answers to these are Yes and No, respectively, then I think we can end this portion of the conversation. Because I’m not trying to change your mind on this – I just wanted to defend against the accusation of hypocrisy. I actually think we would support very similar laws on these subjects and, on the ones we disagree, I think I have a clear notion of what types of evidence could change your mind. That’s a pretty successful intellectual argument, in my mind.
I think the irony here is that while you don’t agree with the French law, you’ve been put in the position of “defending” it in a sense. Similarly, I don’t agree with most obscenity or decency laws (although I think I favor some that you wouldn’t) and have been put in the position of defending them in a sense.
If you do think any portion of my analysis is hypocritical, could you focus your next post on strictly showing the perceived hypocrisy, not the parts of the analysis you just disagree with on philosophical grounds? If so, I will answer those concerns.
I recognize the fact that we both have been put in the position of things that we would normally be against and would certainly be happy to participate to some degree in a new thread.
By the way, I didn't put things in quotes because, well, I'm lazy and didn't want to wade back over the thread. It's taking me long enough just trying to type this stuff out in the most polite way possible. If I'm wrong, you don't need to go back and 'show' me that I'm wrong, just tell me where what I wrote above is wrong and that will be that. We can then let this thread drop and move on to whatever topic you wish to discuss.
posted
Hey, Anna, I specifically said the government, and I stick by it. I have problems with the American, Canadian, German, etc. governments, too. However, each problem I have with each government is separate from the other. I didn't preface my statement with "America is better because" when I said what I said. I pointed out that the biggest flaw with the French government that bothers me to no end is its anti-semitism. It's always bothered me, and it bothers me no matter what government is doing it. This is an example of the government actually legislating it, which is what I pointed out, and which is why I don't like it. I'm arrogant for many things, but not for what you're accusing me of this time. Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The previous is said with a friendly smile and the warmest of feelings, by the way, because I like Anna, and don't want her to have the wrong impression of me.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:From your posts, I think you are saying that you believe religion and religious choices have a greater need for, or are worthy of more, protection than non-religious ones.
Basically, except I don't limit the things that need protecting to religious choices. I believe certain things are worthy of more protection than other things. I include religous choices, expression (speech, press), petition for redress, liberty (physical - not being in prison), etc. in the list of things worthy of greater protection.
I think the only acceptable limits on these rights is when the exercise of these rights intereferes with the rights of other people. Balancing such interference is the truly difficult job of the judiciary. It requires weighing the importance of the implicated rights to each person and the extent of the restrictions being imposed.
quote:It may be understandable, but if a person supports a principle for one group, but not the one they belong to, forgive me, but I'm not sure what the proper word is....
See, I don't see it as supporting a principle for one group and not another. If some people don't care to wear clothing that expresses religious or other beliefs, then they just aren't taking advantage of a right they have.
I'll have to think up a good way to frame the discussion for a new thread. I'm interested in the whole subject of balancing individual rights within democratic societies. It'd be interesting to see where people think the boundaries should lie.
posted
This is a subject I find it difficult to take sides on. (ahem, I'm also Canadian). There is a hugely strong argument on both sides. I think it's an interesting ban, at the very least, and watching the people of France react to such a ban is going to be interesting.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I was not talking about my or your government, but about you and me. I mean, all of you. You are here giving us lessons, when your country is not better than ours. I could enumerate, but I'm not going to lose my time with it. Let's say that I never (or really rarely) tried to give you lessons on how to direct your country. That's why I don't judge myself as arrogant, and you as arrogant.
EDIT : hadn't read your post, John. I'm not blaming you. It's just that it's irritating to hear lessons sometimes, especially here where I'm the only French (oh Stephane, where are you when I need you ?) and feel like being attaked myself and not only my government (by the way I don't agree with them politicaly even if I voted for it to avoid a nazi for president, as a lot of persons here did.)
[ February 12, 2004, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
There's a parable which comes to the defense of those who are criticizing the French government.
A man once came to a small village, and was treated with great hospitality. When he was offered a drink, however, he was shocked; the water was sandy and tasted terrible. In return for the village's hospitality, he taught the villagers how to filter the water so that it would be pure.
The villagers were ecstatic; they thanked the man and the man went on his way.
Several months later the man returned to the village - to find that a large portion of the village was lying in ruins, blackened by what must have been an enormous fire.
Shocked, the man asked the villagers what had happened. They explained that a fire had broken out, and since filtering water took a while, they couldn't get enough water ready quickly enough to put out the fire.
"You fools!" the man said, saddened. "When a fire is raging, you use any water you can find!"
~~~
Ideally, we would only reprimand our fellows if we were perfect in that area ourselves. Humans are not perfect, though, and if this ideal was followed, few people would be in the position to criticize others, to protest wrongs or injustices. A few people - a limited amount of water - is not enough to put out a fire. If a fire is raging, if there's a serious problem that needs addressing, this should be the concern of everyone, not just those who are completely blameless themselves.
~~~~
In addition, no one was attacking you directly. They were criticizing your government, yes, but I can assure you that they (probably) criticize their own government as well.
Every government has issues. If only perfect governments were allowed to criticize other governments, then institutes such as the United Nations could not exist, and no country could ever pressure another country to stop doing something widely believed to be wrong.
And one last, completely non-relatd note: Whether or not there were WMD in Iraq is important only insofar as their absence would indicate failure on the part of American Intelligence. Iraq was still being run by a dictator who murdered indiscriminately, who imposed harsh laws on his country, and who was a self-proclaimed enemy of the U.S. They'd had WMD at one point, and could have restocked at any point - but even if not, there still was a valid reason to go to war. It isn't as though the entire war is now a mistake simply because one of the causes for going to war seems to no longer be valid.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You are here giving us lessons, when your country is not better than ours. I could enumerate, but I'm not going to lose my time with it.
The discussion on this topic has been similar to many a discussion here about American policies. Some for it, some against it, lots of sidetracks and derailments.
quote:Let's say that I never (or really rarely) tried to give you lessons on how to direct your country. That's why I don't judge myself as arrogant, and you as arrogant.
I still don't understand how commenting on a policy which is receiving wide press coverage and discussion is arrogant.
posted
I know what you're saying, Anna, and I assure you I'm not attacking you. But don't worry—I'm on your side when it comes to anyone attacking you personally. As far as I see it, France is experiencing a problem similar to the US: a leader(s) that doesn't speak for the "people" as a whole, but for a loud minority who have agendas and make the people in general look bad.
And other guys, you can ease off the heavy-handedness with Anna. She's not disagreeing about the ban, she's saying that not everyone supports it.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I will try to be clear on my opinions, but it will be pretty hard, because I'm not really in favor or against the ban. So. First, I'm agaisnt the ban, because Kama is right, the options we give to the girls who wear a veil are not acceptable at all. But then... I'm going to tell something I don't tell usually because it's kind of humiliating. As most of you know, I'm a woman, I live in France and I'm 22. But I am considered as attractive (understand I have big breasts). There are always been men looking at me in the street, sometimes trying to touch me. But there has been a raise in these deplaced acts (see the hug thread to have an exemple) and I hope you won't say I'm racist if I say that by the color of the skin of the men who behave like that, they probably are Muslims. They think : hey, my sister is respectable, she wears a veil, but this woman in the steet doesn't hide her hair, so I can do whatever I want with her. Proof : this happens far far less when I wear a hat. So I'm afraid, yes. To dramatize things, I'm afraid to wake up one day in the islamic Afghanistan. So even if I know it's unfair to force the girls to do something that is against their religion (but a lot of people say the obligation of wearing a veil is not in the Koran but only a tradition, so...) I feel relieved thinking that these guys will see that theirs sisters are still respectable, even if they are not hiding their hair. Egoïstic, maybe. Certainly. But I love my freedom, thank you.
EDIT to add that I don't think I will post again on the subject, or only if there is an interesting question.
[ February 13, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I understand. Are you ironic ? I mean, if I say something like that here in France, some people will call me racist. We don't kid with racism, and it's dificult sometimes to express the fact that you don't agree with something that is in another culture without being called a racist, even if it's bad like treating women like cows.
[ February 13, 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm being sarcastic because the same affliction of being unable to criticize anything but the dominant culture exists here in America quite often.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anna, that must have been difficult to post. It does help me understand you much better, though. Thanks.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(((((Claudia Therese))))) You are a wonderfull person and I know I don't have to fear your judgement. Thank you. Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
May have been they mistook your dark coloring as indicating you were at least partly of recent ethnicMuslim background, Anna. Interestingly enough, they are probably correct except for the 'recent'. Due to the Muslim conquests, most presentday Europeans can claim to be a direct descendent of Mohammed through his daughter Fatima. But then, most Europeans also have a legitimate claim to be of royal blood, with at least Charlemagne as an ancestor.
Ethnic-looking FrenchMuslim women were amongst those who initiated the push for the headscarf ban. They felt that radical"Muslim" clergy were using the headscarf as a public badge to encourage punishment -- rape and/or public sexual molestation&humiliation -- of Muslim girls&women who didn't wear the headscarf, for failing to follow the NorthAfrican&antiMuslim custom of being the chattel property of men.
posted
And frankly, the claims of "Americans wouldn't do that" expressed here are ill-informed jingoism.
'Separation of church and state' was initially presented in the South by the KluKluxKlan and the SouthernBaptists to prevent RomanCatholics from holding public office and government jobs, under the wrong theory that compliance to the Pope's desires is the primary loyalty of Church members under RomanCatholic doctrine. Heck ya still see posters on this forum trying to push the complete&utter nonsense that the Pope's word is automaticly RomanCatholic doctrine. And earlier in the North, rioting by RomanCatholics forced public schools to cease using the St.James Bible as the primary reader (ie the text with which to teach reading). Etc. And it was less than a quarter century ago that Sikhs and Jews who wore turbans and yarmulkes were kicked out the USArmedServices by a USSupremeCourt decision agreeing with the desires of the Republican ReaganAdministration.
quote:And frankly, the claims of "Americans wouldn't do that" expressed here are ill-informed jingoism.
Who said this in this thread? There have been appeals to values enshrined in the federal and state constitutions, but no one has suggested America is perfect on this score. Jingoism, indeed.
quote:Heck ya still see posters on this forum trying to push the complete&utter nonsense that the Pope's word is automaticly RomanCatholic doctrine.
Who has said this? I haven't seen such a claim since I got here, and I definitely would have responded to that.
posted
This exchange inre Gibson's Passion is just the latest in a long trail of such postings misunderstanding both the history&doctrine of Papal Infallibility*, and the role of the Pope as servant of the Church (defined by Vatican II as the nonclergy membership) and not its tyrant.
*The link fails to mention that PiuxIX was also the politicianfirst who railroaded that doctrine -- considered blasphemous under previous RomanCatholic Popes -- through Vatican I by financial intimidation, etc. Most bishops/voters couldn't even hear the debate, nor was a copy of the debate allowed to be circulated before the vote.
posted
If you haven't noticed, Dagonee, I don't participate in "having the last word" contests. For those interested, use this site's searchengine on either pope or catholic or some form of infallible. You'll run across plenty of "if they don't like what the Pope says..." or (due to similarly mistaken belief) "...Catholic doctrine (referring to what a pope advocated rather than actual doctrine) says, they should leave the Church".
posted
Um, aspectre, not to pull some wind from your sails, but the KKK was not involved in such legislation, as their group had other priorities, most notably being the issues with the Reconstruction. It was proestant extremist fundementalists, to be sure, but you're getting the characters in the story all mixed up.
Makes you seem less credible when you mess up like that.
And you don't have to look that far back to get religious-based persecution...
Wait for it...
All you have to do is look at recent uproar over same-sex marriages.
</can of worms>
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Are you ironic ? I mean, if I say something like that here in France, some people will call me racist. We don't kid with racism, and it's dificult sometimes to express the fact that you don't agree with something that is in another culture without being called a racist, even if it's bad like treating women like cows.
