Veil (and Burqua) not welcome in France

[Rapscallion]

Hitting google and typing in 'define: jihad' gets several interesting interpretations.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

Killing is a fundamental part of every religion no matter what some of its sedentary practioners may say.

Er, no. Since major religions' holy books say specifically "Don't kill," it's not fundamental, it's extremist. Fundamental would be an essential part. Killing isn't essential to most religions. For one who insists on linguistical precision, you've got some sloppy word usage.

ETA: witch burnings was not an actual religious persecution. It was all jumped up to provide an excuse to kill certain "undesirables" or to commandeer someone's property.

I've heard islamic scholars on the radio before describing how 'jihad' is a word that means 'to be done properly', and it can mean something as simple as a carpenter making a table properly.

Ah, neat. Not heard that. "Jihad as holy war," was specifically what the article was addressing.

[Rapscallion]

Funny note, I read an article from a Quran scholar that mentioned there's no such thing as a jihad in the book. It's a complete fabrication and prop by the extremists.

I've heard islamic scholars on the radio before describing how 'jihad' is a word that means 'to be done properly', and it can mean something as simple as a carpenter making a table properly.

Not being islamic and not able to speak arabic, I'm not exactly sure how much of this was window dressing.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Funny note, I read an article from a Quran scholar that mentioned there's no such thing as a jihad in the book. It's a complete fabrication and prop by the extremists.

Thous shalt not suffer a witch to live. Killing is a fundamental part of every religion no matter what some of its sedentary practioners may say.

[BroomJockey]

The problem with islam is that many of its followers don't pick and choose what they believe like those of other religions... yet.

Funny note, I read an article from a Quran scholar that mentioned there's no such thing as a jihad in the book. It's a complete fabrication and prop by the extremists.

[Flyndaran]

...
What is traditional garb? For many, the burqua isn't traditional - a simple 'hijab' (head covering) and all-covering clothes suffice to meet the strictures of the koran. There are as many shades of grey in the matter as there are in varieties of christianity.
...
Rapscallion

The bible does mention headware in church.
The problem with islam is that many of its followers don't pick and choose what they believe like those of other religions... yet.

[Rapscallion]

Personally, I find it hard to believe that there would be many women who voluntarily wear a burqa or a veil if they had any sort of *real* choice in the matter.

There are, actually. For some it's a scary thought. However, how much different is it from a security blanket that keeps away the monsters in the night?

But... I have a work female colleague or 2, who are muslim, and they don't wear the traditional garb.

What is traditional garb? For many, the burqua isn't traditional - a simple 'hijab' (head covering) and all-covering clothes suffice to meet the strictures of the koran. There are as many shades of grey in the matter as there are in varieties of christianity.

As far as French opinion is concerned... it's none of their business, really.

It's their land. They can pass the laws they want, though it's the problem of whether or not others disagree enough with that to bring in sanctions or the troops.

If someone wishes to practice a religion, why bother stopping them? Well, not unless the Muslims are trying to get a political party together to change the French laws in that direction. 10% is a fairly large number, politically speaking.

Yes, 10% of the population is the sort of figure that would have a politician screaming after a nightmare at election time.

As to why stop people from practicing a religion, there are a few facets to consider.

1 - What are the effects of the religion? For me, the burqua is more than a device to stop raiders of desert tribes working out which of the women were attractive, or to stop mens' lusts (men are morally weaker than women? another thread). Instead, it's a visible symbol of what religion is about - them and us. "We're visibly different to you. We're the chosen of our divinity. We feel secure in this. We're better than you." The corresponding view from onlookers is that of suspicion and hostility. Them and us works both ways.

2 - What is the nature of the host country? France is a very protective country. I know of no other nation that has an institute to protect its language, nor of one that genuinely controls how much television from other countries can be watched on the grounds of culture (not on the grounds of mind control). France has continuously tried to block any more languages being recognised as being official for reporting at the European Union and its forebears - it fears English being recognised and naturally taking over. The other side of this is that France is also a very welcoming country (often on its own terms, but...) - the word 'frank' has its roots in the word meaning 'free'. France has a habit of trying to coordinate peaceful intentions (such as the EU etc). It welcomes people, and then it sees the welcomed people holding themselves visibly apart from them.

3 - Denying a religion some sort of rights will make it more attractive to those interested in being a martyr.

I'm somewhat torn on the matter. I honestly think that this is a generational thing. Back in the sixties in Britain, it wasn't uncommon to see boarding houses with signs saying 'no blacks, no irish, no dogs'. Nobody worries about the black or irish sections of the population now - we've got scary newcomers to hold our attention. Sure, they cook nice food for the most part, but you can't see their womens' faces, and a small minority like to bomb us, so they must all be bad - and look at the funny shape of their temples!

Give it a couple of generations - maybe fifty or sixty years - and the integration will have settled in both ways, and by then we'll have another population to hold our interest. Of note is that the relatively cheap price of travel means that this effect of migration is happening faster and often overlapping.

It's not something that will settle down overnight, and no measure introduced by anyone will force the pace of change. Populations can change - a boarding house putting up such a sign as above these days would be hauled up in front of a court very quickly. However, the change happened over decades. It's not glacial, but it's not far from it.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

If you were to ask them if they freely choose to wear the garb, they will say 'yes'.

<snip>

As far as French opinion is concerned... it's none of their business, really. If someone wishes to practice a religion, why bother stopping them?

Part the first. Is it really freely chosen? Or is it that they're conditioned to want it from birth by dominating cultural pressures or brutally strict family pressures? Of course they'll say yes, because probably 95% of the time, they can't actually comprehend the idea that it's possible to not.

Part the second. Actually, it's completely their business. A sovereign country is completely free to dictate the kinds of society they want, free from outside influence, and with no need to kowtow to whatever standard you feel should be imposed. If the French want a society where no one can hide their identity for long periods of time, or to even disallow outward signs of religiousity, they're free to do that. If you don't like it, don't live there, or work to change it. You don't need to approve of it, but don't fall in to the trap of thinking that a government's job isn't to help shape the society the electorate desires, including acceptance of religion.

[Flyndaran]

I'll weigh in and suggest the women choose to wear it, as part of a religion that they choose to follow and obey. If you were to ask them if they freely choose to wear the garb, they will say 'yes'.

But... I have a work female colleague or 2, who are muslim, and they don't wear the traditional garb.

So.. who's right?

...

Trick question. Your colleagues follow a different form of islam. They are both right in as much as any religious follower can be.

[Slytovhand]

I'll weigh in and suggest the women choose to wear it, as part of a religion that they choose to follow and obey. If you were to ask them if they freely choose to wear the garb, they will say 'yes'.

But... I have a work female colleague or 2, who are muslim, and they don't wear the traditional garb.

So.. who's right?


As far as French opinion is concerned... it's none of their business, really. If someone wishes to practice a religion, why bother stopping them? Well, not unless the Muslims are trying to get a political party together to change the French laws in that direction. 10% is a fairly large number, politically speaking.


So, in response to The Shadow, the real question (which is a bit more encompassing) is: Should we allow people to be sheep?

[The Shadow]

Well since you asked...

I totally support freedom of religion, but this issue isn't so clear-cut to me. The Burqa and the Veil are items of clothing that represent a religious belief of female subordination. Everyone should have the freedom to make their own choices, but we also have to keep in mind that no one makes choices in a vacuum; there's always a number of factors like cultural pressures and expectations that are going to influence one's decisions and so we can't always be sure a choice is truly authentic. Personally, I find it hard to believe that there would be many women who voluntarily wear a burqa or a veil if they had any sort of *real* choice in the matter.

[Flyndaran]

I know that I don't like banning a type of clothing.
But I wouldn't have a problem with businesses banning people wearing them as suspicious activity. It's no worse than wearing a ski mask in a 7/11.

[Rapscallion]

So, what's your position, Shadow? This is a debate site - come on and speak up

Rapscallion

[The Shadow]

French Muslims' Veils Ignite Debate On Values

Full-Length Covering Subject of Inquiry

VENISSIEUX, France -- It was market day on Place Leon Sublet, the main square in this little working-class town southeast of Lyon. In the shadow of an old Catholic church, unhurried shoppers wandered the food stalls.

It could have been a portrait of France at its most traditional, except that many of the women wore robes down to their ankles and long scarves to conceal their hair.

Then along came a woman shrouded head to toe in black. Only her dark eyes were visible through a narrow slit in her veil, a portrait more reminiscent of Saudi Arabia than traditional France.

French people have long been accustomed to Muslim women wearing head scarves and long dresses. But the sight of women covered by black veils, increasingly frequent in some towns, has become the latest test of France's uneasy role as host to the largest Muslim population in Europe, nearly 6 million out of 64 million. Because of its stark distinction from the way European women dress, the full veil has generated a public outcry, becoming a symbol widely perceived as an assault on France's secular values.