France, the culture wars over head scarves

On 12/12/03 3:02, in article , "Yves
Bellefeuille" wrote:

Many languages have academies, but anglophones seem to be obsessed with
the Academie francaise.


It is mostly the Americans who joke about it. Indeed one rarely
hears about the Academy or Jerry Lewis, and when one does
it is here.

Earl

Mxsmanic wrote:

Explain state-owned churches, then.

God works in mysterious ways.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

On 12/12/03 6:18, in article , "Charles
Hawtrey" wrote:

(Yves Bellefeuille) staggered to the nearest keyboard and
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, (Charles Hawtrey) wrote:

Probably for the same reason that the Academie Française worries over
the incursion of terms such as "email" into the language;

I'm always amused when anglophones get all excited about the Academie
francaise. They think that it has much more importance than it really
does. I've worked as a professional translator-revisor for over ten
years and I've never even *seen* the "Dictionnaire de l'Academie".

"Excited" isn't quite the right word. I can't think of a single word
that fits, but we (if I may speak for Anglophones) tend to think the
pronouncements of the Academie francaise are silly but harmless, like
Don Quixote tilting at windmills. The Academie probably gets more
attention because its actions seem consistent with certain stereotypes
about French cultural chauvinism.


Yves point and my observation is the the Academie is an Anglo obsession.
As an Ango I agree. The organization makes the news when it elects
a new member, like yesterday`s election of Giscard. Since Giscard
is "known" to me a great man of "letters" this will, without doubt
polish up the image of the club a bit more.

But for most of us, it makes us remember the great words of Caesar (?)

"je ****e, je passe"

earl

Earl Evleth wrote:

The pressure to reduce religious dress in western societies has stretched
to the church. I live in a very Catholic area of Paris, surrounded by
convents, so we get a lot of nuns, sisters and priests on the street.

Earl, perhaps you reveal a monocultural mindset in referring to "the
church". You did say in another thread that you do not write easily,
so I won't make too strong an inference. But I am amused.

The traditional garb for females has evolved from what was a dress
from form the middle ages, not very practical in modern times.
So conservative dress has come into style replacing the habits
of yesteryear.

Largely. But in France (more than in Ireland, for example) one still
sees nuns in traditional habits, or modified versions of them. The
custom of Catholic priests wearing black garb and a Roman collar is
still very strong. Do people in France ever voice objection to such
traditions?

Some people need a uniform to feel like they are members of the group,
a form of external and internal advertising.

Agreed. But the question is complicated by views about modest dress,
especially modest dress for females.

Like most heterosexual males, I find female pulchritude pleasing to my
eye. But if any female wants to refuse me the opportunity to
appreciate her beauty, I respect her right.

In a town I know well in Brittany, there are a number of members of a
Protestant cult where the women cover their heads outside the home
(perhaps in it, too, for all I know, but I suspect not) and wear long
shapeless dresses. This includes girls attending state schools. Nobody
objects; it seems to be regarded as quaint and quite harmless.

I mention these Christian customs to raise a question: is the concern
about how students garb themselves confined to a concern about how
some Islamic females dress? Might the opposition to the veil be
political, as you suggest some regard the wearing of it?

The "message" of special dress at least IN PART must be both defensive
and offensive, the declaration "I am different" and also that
"I am superior" in some fashion to you.

Your analysis is, I think, too definitive. Where special dress is a
quasi-uniform, it can indeed signify "I am different" or "I am
superior", but not necessarily both. But a dress code which reflects a
view about what is becoming and modest is not the same as a uniform.

The toning down the dress code in Catholic "professionals" says
to me that "I am not superior" but this is my way of doing things.
The collective egoism aspect goes away.

Just a side-note: the Pope has indicated that he would prefer nuns to
return to wearing the habit. The nuns I know are quite deaf to his
wishes.

[See what you have achieved? I have been embroiled in discussion about
freedom of expression, where some might have thought that I wished to
curb such freedom. And now here I am defending such rights.]

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

So you would support the right of someone to wear a KKK outfit or Nazi
uniform to work or school, right?

Wrong.

Explain why the KKK or Nazi outfit is unacceptable, whereas religious
garments are.

Implicit advocacy of hatred.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Yves Bellefeuille writes:

The French attitude is not only that the state should be neutral in
matters of religion, but also that it should be neutral regarding
whether one should believe in religion or not. Any expression of
religious opinion in a state context -- and public schools are obviously
run by the state -- is unacceptable.

Explain state-owned churches, then.

These churches are buildings inherited by local towns and villages,
it's part of the "patrimoine". But the French state can not subsidize
the building of new churches/synagogues/mosquees, with the exception
of Alsace and Lorraine which were under German rule when the
separation of church and state occurred in France (1903)

Padraig Breathnach writes:

God works in mysterious ways.

God doesn't have anything to do with churches.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Earl Evleth a écrit :

I gave the statistics in the original post, it was 49% for dumping the
scarfs, 41% against it.

It's not exactly that (I read the piece), it's 49% for a law against scarves, 41%
against such a law. Which means that 49% of muslim women in France are so much
against scarf wearing that they want a law against it, while 41% doesn't - but it
doesn't mean that those 41% want to wear a scarf - they just don't want a law
against it.

Nathalie in Switzerland

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

God works in mysterious ways.

God doesn't have anything to do with churches.

You asked her?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Padraig Breathnach writes:

Implicit advocacy of hatred.

Implicit, or inferred?

And why is advocacy of hatred unacceptable? Because you don't like it?
Some people might feel the same way about the advocacy of a particular
religion "implied" by religious garb.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.