France, the culture wars over head scarves

On 12/12/03 13:18, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

laurent writes:

These churches are buildings inherited by local towns and villages,
it's part of the "patrimoine".

Why are they still ruled by the Catholic church, then?


What to you mean ruled? Owned?

The facts are than there a hell of a lot of rural churches which don`t have
priests and don`t function. So the government takes over keeping them
repaired. Maybe. Some of them are not worth protecting.

If you buy a Chateau in France you may be able to get local financial help
to keep the place from falling into total decay. The roof is the most
important feature of an old structure, if that goes and starts leaking the
wood goes, the roof falls in, then water gets into the walls and the stone
work starts going.

I don`t know the decay time of an average structure would be but I would
suspect that 100 years of total neglect is more than enough to reduce a
structure into an unrecoverable ruin.

We have a running family joke, when driving through the French countryside
and seeing a old farm house with the roof caved in. We then say "travaux
prévue" and chuckle.


The local real estate office might advertise this place with a "travaux
prévue". This would span a broad spectrum of properties in poor condition.
But the challenge to the buyer would be "formidable". You can buy an old
place for 50,000 euros and spend another 50,000 bringing it up to minimum
standards, another 50,000 for something better and so on. If the roof
is gone, forget it.

However, if the structure is "classé" you can get some subsidizes for saving
the structure. This is a trap, however.

Earl

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

Implicit.

That is only your inference.

That's being specious.

Because it is bad for society.

Do you hate the KKK and Nazis?

No. But I hate what they advocate.

They cannot justify it if the religious belief is not based on or
particularly supportive of hatred.

They can't justify it to you; but you don't seem to have any objective
arguments in favor of your position, which apparently varies greatly
depending on your subjective opinion.

No, it doesn't. My position is not simplistic.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:01:40 +0100, Earl Evleth
wrote:

Next, the other side of the Fence, those in the Islamic community
against scarves, is not getting sufficient play in the English language
press. Part of this movement may be by those Algerians of Berber descent
against Arabization (including making Arab the official language in
Algeria).
So the culture wars in the Muslim community are more complicated that
the Anglos realize.

I certainly have read about the tensions over headscarves within the
Arab community, not only in France, but also in Turkey and Iran. I
can't remember which parts of the English language press have covered
this issue, but I have read more than one such article. I would say at
least three or four in the past several years.

To me this is irrelevant to the issue as to whether headscarves should
be allowed in schools. I agree with both Alan Harrison and Padraig
Breathnach. It is not the same thing as a Christian wearing a
crucifix, because a crucifix on a neck chain is a symbol of private
devotion, in no way required or even recommended by the Catholic
religion, while a head scarf worn for religious motives is a
requirement of that person's faith. Even if you can find Muslims who
state otherwise, there are enough religious authorities who demand it
to make the wearing of it seem mandatory for a devout Muslim.

I believe that the yarmulke is required of Orthodox Jewish males; if
so, so I would say that is the real equivalent.

It reminds me of an interview I read with a priest in Sicily who was
opposed to the building of a mosque in his parish. He objected on two
points:

1. the Muslim immigrants in his parish are poor and have need of
housing above all. The money would be wasted on a mosque when there
are so many more pressing needs. To which I ask, Have other pressing
needs ever stopped the Catholic Church from building churches in
Africa?

2. Islam does not require a building to pray in. Muslims can pray in
any sort of place, therefore a mosque is superfluous. To which I ask,
Where is it written that Christians can only pray in churches? I can
point to a passage in the gospel where the Lord Himself refutes this
idea.
]
Lastly, some of the wearing of scarves are part of the "teenage" rebellian
against adult authority, it is seen in some of the confrontations.

This is one excellent reason why the state should remove itself
completely from the issue.

People do things for at least two reasons

1) the one they verbalize

2) the real one.

This is surely an enormous assumption. There may be mixed reasons for
every action but who are you to judge the validity of the various
motives?

-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:28:42 -0700, randee wrote:

Well it was done in the US; the plural marriages of Mormonism were
outlawed in US. Although as I understand it there are still some small
pockets of resistance in the more remote corners of Utah and Arizona.

Actually, the prohibition of polygamy is an interesting case. No one
is prosecuting these cases anymore, unless there is the additional
issue of compulsion or marriage of minors below the legal age. I feel
that the reason polygamy is being tolerated is that it would be very
difficult to sustain a legal challenge to this law. The law as I
understand criminalizes polygamy even if the multiple marriages are
not registered with the state. In other words, the Mormon
fundamentalists "marry" their wives only under some private vow,
although they make make one marriage official.

Why is a such a polygamist a criminal when a man who has relationships
with half a dozen different women without marrying them not a
criminal? The state may be justified in not giving its imprimatur to
plural marriages, but if someone wants to marry several women under
some private religious contract I don't see how the state can
interfere unless they want to impose chastity on everybody.

Dunno if Europe allows plural marriages, anybody?

I don't think any European country does.
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:22:17 +0100, Earl Evleth
wrote:

On 11/12/03 22:01, in article , "B
Vaughan" wrote:

France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.

I don`t know of Breton or Basque names are forbidden? This is the
first time I have heard of that. Do you have any information on that
law and how the EU situation might have changed it.

Maybe the issue doesn't get much press in France.

Well, after I wrote this I remember that my Syrian students children
were born in France and he gave them Arab first names. That
was allowed.

The French don`t get excited about first names, there is always a
Jean-Pierre grandfather to name the baby boy after. My wife reminded
me that there are some commonly used Breton first names. So the
idea that first names are controlled that strictly must be false.

I since saw a mention of 1970 as the date that Breton names first
became included in the list of approved names. However, I also saw
another web page that indicated that many Bretons still feel that many
Breton names are not included. Neither of these pages had any
authorative references so I didn't make a note of them.

I myself would find it objectionable that parents can't choose any
name they please for their child. (I know that not only France has
these restrictions.)

The problem is that parents name their kids stupidly at times and
their kids end up not likely their first name. My father was
Earl too, I was a Jr. I never liked that. My wife detests
her first name.

Lists of approved names would scarcely solve your problem. Nor do I
find it sufficient justification for the petty interference in what
should be the private sphere. There are things that I see parents
doing every day that are of far greater harm to a child than a silly
name.

I recently saw a funeral notice in my town for an elderly woman named
"Atea" (atheist). Obviously her father was a good communist, but it
didn't seem to prevent her from having a funeral mass.

-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:21:32 +0100, Nathalie Chiva
wrote:

Earl Evleth a écrit :

France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.

No, not anymore. That law was changed at the beginning of the 90's. It was replaced
by a "reverse" law: You can give any name you wish to a child, but it must not
expose that child to ridicule (so that really offensive names, or ridiculous ones,
can be refused by the State).

Do you know where I can find a brief history of the law, including the
dates when restrictions against certain types of "non-French" name
were removed?
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:28 -0500, (Yves Bellefeuille)
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, B Vaughan wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, the government should make no rules about the
wearing of any religious garb unless absolutely necessary.

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.

I think that forbidding someone to dress as their religion requires is
far from neutral. A person sitting next to me in a Burkah in a
classroom hardly represents the state forcing me to believe anything.

American presidents like to say "God bless America"; the French find
this shocking and unacceptable. (And I agree.)

I get irritated by politicians who drape themselves in flags and
Bibles, but as far as I'm concerned they can say "God" as much as they
want as long as they don't try to make me say it. I feel differently
about teachers or others who have a captive audience making references
to religion. I am in favor of removing crosses from schools, public
hospitals and courtrooms in Italy. Other than that, and other places
where people are constrained to be, I don't favor any restrictions.
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

On 11 Dec 2003 14:01:16 -0800, (meurgues) wrote:

B wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:02:55 +0100, Earl Evleth
wrote:
4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
they must be French all educated in the same manner.

In other words, ethnically French means purged of all ethnic
diversity?

Ethnical diversity ? Do you think that we are painting the blacks in
pink here or that curry, or couscous is forbiden by law ?

I was only commenting on Earl's statement that the mission of the
schools to "put out ethnically French students". A statement like this
seems to deprecate diversity, don't you think?

This is the same sort of reasoning that led France to
forbid parents in Brittany giving Breton names to their children.

Ridiculous. I know many person with breton names : Soizic Corne,
etc... Recently their was a "stagiaire" named Lannick in my office.
Furthermore if some were tempted to do that in the 19th c., which I
don't know, that would have been contrary to the law even the one of
1791 which was requiring first names already used in history and not
worst that the changing of emigrants names, arriving in Ellis island,
in a more anglo-saxon way.

I am trying to find the history of this practice. I saw a mention on a
Breton culture page that said that Breton names became possible in
1970. If you can find any specific references, I would appreciate it.
It certainly was more recent that the 19th century that the Breton
language was suppressed in France.

The changing of immigrant's names in Ellis Island was not a practice
of the state. It was sometimes the result of a misunderstanding (or
laziness) on the part of the official processing the immigrants, it
was sometimes because the immigrant was illiterate and couldn't spell
his own name, and sometimes because the immigrant himself wanted to
Anglicize the name. However, there was never a policy that required
that name be anglicized.

So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.

In a diverse society, schools have to do their best to accommodate the
beliefs of their various minorities. When I was a child, my family
belonged to a small religious sect that forbid dancing. My school had
folk dances classes as part of physical education. I was exempted from
these classes. Other children were Jehovah's Witnesses and were exempt
from the "saluting of the flag", an exercise that was almost universal
in my childhood but that had disappeared by the time my children were
in school.

There's a difference between not participating to a lesson, by defect,
which is exceptionaly possible in France, and deambulating with a
"pink tchador", pushing the other girls to do the same.

The pressuring of other girls to do the same could really be a problem
which the school should have to address. However, if girls are
permitted to dress as they please and told that prosyletyzing will not
be tolerated, that would be a worthwhile compromise.

As far as I'm concerned, this tension between private beliefs and
public duties is a healthy one. However, there has to be debate and
compromise. I don't understand why only France has this huge problem
with its Muslim students. Other European countries have dealt with
this problem much more flexibly.

For the reason that France is the only lay country in western Europe
as far as I know. All the other having officialised religions in their
institutions and giving more or less privileges to the one or the
others (MPs, money, etc...), they can't consequently deny to the ones
what they have accepted for the others. France wich is lay simply
doesn't care of these "rapports de force".

Is France really the only lay country in Europe? In what sense do you
mean "lay"? As far as I know, many other countries have no official
religion. Germany and the Netherlands, for instance, have no official
religion. If "lay" means that religion must be hidden, it become sort
of an official secularism, which is almost a religions itself.

In the US, public schools are "lay" in the sense that there is no
mention of religion in the schools (although some schools are
beginning to flout this law). This means, for instance, that no
Christmas carols are sung and no Christmas displays are allowed.
However, within reason, the students are permitted to dress as their
religion requires. Head scarves are widely worn. The US also has a
very large Muslim population.

Finally, I find totally ridiculous the choice of different hours for
girls and boys in swimming pools since in France we have the habit of
mixity wich is the general rule. As you sayed I don't see what
necessary reason could justify that.

Like it or not, Europe is becoming a country of immigrants and what
seems perfectly reasonable to a French person may offend the
sensibilities of the new residents. To insist that they instantly
become French in their most private beliefs only generates hostility.
Surely their children and grandchildren will be assimilated all too
well. The only alternative would be to preselect immigrants and accept
only those who profess themselves willing to adapt, but I don't like
that idea either. And usually until a person arrives in a new country,
they don't realize what they will find offensive. For example, when I
came to Italy I felt totally ready to accept the cultural differences
that I would find. But I do find the heavy hand of the Catholic Church
a bit much. (I'm sure many Catholics in the US would be equally
annoyed by the way their Church behaves in Italy.) I'm now an Italian
citizen and I feel entitled to criticize. But if you are right, I
should bite my tongue and bow to the superior right of Italian
culture.
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Why privilege religion?
If I want to wear a swastika T-Shirt in school should I be permitted
to do so? Of course the ban on scarves is oppressive; it is forcing
people to be french.
It is defining frenchness in a way that excludes the scarf

The french commonality (commonweal?) has a perfect right to do this.

It is forced assimilation, and quite appropriate.

O'Donnell


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.

(Bjorn Olsson) wrote in message . com...
Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
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!

Well, it seems to have worked almost perfectly for icelandic. It is
still almost completely free of anglisisms, despite their country
being exposed to even more anglosaxon cultural influence than France.

Bjorn


Yes, and the reason why it works is that foreign words are not
outlawed, it is the users of the language that voluntarily keep the
foreign words to a minimum.