France, the culture wars over head scarves

Hatunen writes:

Did she tell you that?

I do have her e-mail address, but I'm not allowed to give it out. It
gives a new meaning to top-level domain.

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

Charles Hawtrey writes:

The obsession of the French with preserving their language and culture
against outside influence is something many of us find difficult to
comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.

Unfortunately, they indulge their obsession in the wrong way, by
treating the symptoms, rather than the cause.

For example, the decline of French is an effect, not a cause. It is the
consequence of the declining influence of France in the world. The
incursion of English words into French is a consequence of the
overwhelming influence of the United States in the world. The only way
to change the balance is to change the influence wielded by these
societies, but the French attempt to fix the problem by simply outlawing
English words and coming up with French translations for them. That
never works, alas! although it is a lot easier to attempt, I'll grant
that.

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

Padraig Breathnach writes:

Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
harmless: it's oppressive.

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

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

Earl Evleth writes:

They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
one of the four ways.

Does the Koran explicitly require any type of covering? I've read the
Koran in the past but I don't recall what it says (if anything) on this
topic.

If the Koran doesn't say so, it's not Islam.

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

Earl Evleth writes:

They do funny things anyway, the elected Giscard to their body today.

Giscard's career ambitions have been to accumulate as many honors as
possible. At least that is my impression. I read once that he quit the
Freemasons when he found out that he couldn't skip levels and just go
right to the top.

Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
in Spanish.

Neither do Hispanics, if they want their kids to succeed in the United
States. Only a number of special-interest groups who profit greatly
from the creation and maintenance of captive audiences really support
instruction in foreign languages. If everyone speaks Spanish, then only
Spanish-speaking groups can communicate with them, and they are isolated
from the mainstream ... and a lot of Spanish-speaking groups like that
idea.

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

Go Fig writes:

Do you think they should have to remove the scarf to get a picture for a
driver's license ?

Yes. Hair is an important part of identification. The whole purpose of
a scarf among Muslims is to hide, so clearly it conflicts with the
purpose of ID photos, which is to reveal.

Women who don't want to remove the scarf can simply do without a
license. The most conservative Muslims don't want women to drive,
anyway, so this should make them happy (cf. Saudi Arabia).

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

Earl Evleth wrote:

Again to stress a point some Moslem women make, the wearing of the head
scarves is a political declaration to them, not a religious one.

The problem, as I am sure you recognise, lies in the word "some".

That is at the heart of the culture war going on.

They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
one of the four ways...

I know little about Islam, but I understand that the role of women in
Islamic society is determined by history and tradition more than by
the Koran. Covering-up is a concomitant of religion rather than
something at the core. But it's there, and it is sincerely observed by
many. One encounters veiled women on the streets of Paris.

Lastly when Chirine Ebadi received the Nobel Prize she received in without
wearing any scarf.

A single instance signifies little.

So the question is whether the wearing of the scarf in France is a religious
or political declaration.

And the core difficulty is that one cannot know for sure in any one
case. To me, it seems to be the safest and wisest course to see it as
religious, and also not to make a special case of it in any way -- so
that if other students wish to use headwear, to tolerate that also.

In either case, the long tradition in France
has that this can not be done in public schools.

A long tradition is not necessarily an honourable tradition. Public
execution was also a long tradition.

French schools generally do not prescribe uniforms for students nor
even, so far as I know, enforce dress codes. In that circumstance, to
single out one particular thing and proscribe it seems targeted and
petty.

So, for some the issue revolves around that issue.

There may also be some who pretend that it revolves around that issue.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
harmless: it's oppressive.

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

Wrong.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Mxsmanic wrote:

Earl Evleth writes:

They do funny things anyway, the elected Giscard to their body today.

Giscard's career ambitions have been to accumulate as many honors as
possible...

and diamonds.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

"Mxsmanic" skrev i meddelandet
...
Earl Evleth writes:

They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
one of the four ways.

Does the Koran explicitly require any type of covering?

AFAIK, no
And covering is used in the cities only, not in the countryside where it's a
hindrance to the work on the fields.