France, the culture wars over head scarves

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:55 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Earl Evleth writes:

Whatever, the issue is not simple, the culture war wages.

The only party without an opinion is God.

Did she tell you that?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Earl Evleth staggered to the nearest keyboard and
wrote:

Are you aware of the anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA!!

My wife is a first-generation Hispanic immigrant, so yes.

There is no denying that there is some anti-Hispanic sentiment in the
USA. But it is not widespread beyond a few redneck elements and is
certainly not officially sanctioned. My in-laws have never had any
trouble outside of an incident at a gas station many years ago in the
deep South. At the risk of opening a new can of worms, I suspect that
anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA is comparable to anti-Semitism in
France: there's no denying it exists to some extent, but it appears
more wide and deep from the outside than from the inside.

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

Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.

Languages don`t need protecting, they take a course of evolution which
is largely uncontrolled by those who speak it.

Agreed. But try telling that to the Academie Française. :-)


--
hambu n hambu hodo

On 11/12/03 17:09, in article ,
"Padraig Breathnach" wrote:

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. I am quite willing to tell my French
friends that. A friend who is not prepared to tell you when you are
getting something wrong is not a good friend.


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.
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.

The scarf

The Hijah

The Niqab

The Burqa

And the object to people telling them how to dress.

The Burqa is full non-Monty, one never sees the idea so the individual.

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


So the question is whether the wearing of the scarf in France is a religious
or political declaration. In either case, the long tradition in France
has that this can not be done in public schools.

So, for some the issue revolves around that issue.

Earl

In article ,
"Donna Evleth" wrote:


Dans l'article , B
a écrit :


As far as I'm concerned, the government should make no rules about the
wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary. I can see
that it would be necessary to forbid the wearing of a face veil for an
identity card photo and it might be necessary to forbid wearing a
Roman toga while on duty as a firefighter. However, in the case of
headscarves (or yarmulkes) in school, I don't see any reason why the
government or the school should have anything to say about it. The
fact that many Muslims don't want to wear veils is irrelevant. If many
young Catholics don't want to go to Mass, the government has no reason
to outlaw going to Mass.

One of the problems in the schools involves course material. The scarves
are not really compatible with physical education (required in France as it
is in the US) or with chemistry labs. Chemistry is optional, depending on
the student, but physical education is not. The physical education
requirement has often been gotten around by the family providing false
medical certificates, so that the girls will be excused from PE, so that
they don't have to remove their scarves at any time. I don't approve of
this. I do not approve of a law banning the headscarves, but I do feel that
everyone should respect the school curriculum.

Donna Evleth



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

jay
Thu, Dec 11, 2003


--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

On 11/12/03 18:45, in article , "Charles
Hawtrey" wrote:



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

Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.

I thought the reaction in California was fairly strong?

Languages don`t need protecting, they take a course of evolution which
is largely uncontrolled by those who speak it.

Agreed. But try telling that to the Academie Française. :-)


Nobody talks about them here. The only people I know who talk about them
are Americans remarking on the their trying to protect the language, with a
hahaha!

I love their uniforms and carrying of swords. Sort of like kids wearing
their Zorro outfits. But I hold a special place in my heart for the
the Pope`s Swiss Guards. And Queen Elizabeth also has some strange people
around her, travels in horse and carriage, at times, and gives 21 gun
salutes to those visitors passing through town.

In fact it is all pretty hahaha.

Earl

On 11/12/03 19:33, in article
, "Go Fig"
wrote:


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


Yes, especially if they have a beard.

Earl

PS: basically one can not wear a hat or sun glasses regardless of sex
The problem comes with a photo without a scarf had to be matched with a
person with a scarf.

DNA anyone?

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:28:33 +0100, Earl Evleth
wrote:

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

If you are talking about formal bilingual education programs, they
were a failed experiment in California. They did not die because
anglos were protecting the English language. They died because
English immersion is more effective, and teachers and administrators
are increasingly being evaluated (and funded) according to
standardized testing results.

Gordon

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:43:58 +0100, Earl Evleth
wrote:

On 11/12/03 18:45, in article , "Charles
Hawtrey" wrote:



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

Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.

I thought the reaction in California was fairly strong?

California voters and legislators have turned down attempts to
discriminate against Hispanics and Spanish. In fact, the recently
recalled governor, Grey Davis, was elected to office against a
previous governor who had expressed favor of a law to limit
Hispanic rights (i.e., those of non-citizens).

That is not to say there is not a group of California curmudgeons
who regard the Hispanics with panic.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:50:22 GMT, Gordon Forbess
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:28:33 +0100, Earl Evleth
wrote:

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

If you are talking about formal bilingual education programs, they
were a failed experiment in California. They did not die because
anglos were protecting the English language. They died because
English immersion is more effective, and teachers and administrators
are increasingly being evaluated (and funded) according to
standardized testing results.

Bilingual education is also now out in Arizona as well, save for
certain cases. As in California, a significant part of the
Hispanic population is opposed to bilingual education as being
totally ineffective in serving the needs of their children.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Dans l'article , B
a écrit :


As far as I'm concerned, the government should make no rules about the
wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary. I can see
that it would be necessary to forbid the wearing of a face veil for an
identity card photo and it might be necessary to forbid wearing a
Roman toga while on duty as a firefighter. However, in the case of
headscarves (or yarmulkes) in school, I don't see any reason why the
government or the school should have anything to say about it. The
fact that many Muslims don't want to wear veils is irrelevant. If many
young Catholics don't want to go to Mass, the government has no reason
to outlaw going to Mass.

One of the problems in the schools involves course material. The scarves
are not really compatible with physical education (required in France as it
is in the US) or with chemistry labs. Chemistry is optional, depending on
the student, but physical education is not. The physical education
requirement has often been gotten around by the family providing false
medical certificates, so that the girls will be excused from PE, so that
they don't have to remove their scarves at any time. I don't approve of
this. I do not approve of a law banning the headscarves, but I do feel that
everyone should respect the school curriculum.

Donna Evleth