Secular Non-Secularism

[nfotxn]

France Attempts to Ban Relgious Symbols in Public Schools

It may look good on paper attempting to create a totally secular society. But growing up in Canadian public schools I know that first hand allowing everyone to express their faith only made us all more tolerant of eachother.

I think by the very gesture of being involved in what symbols the people may express themselves with the state relates itself to religion rather than leaving people to their religious freedom. They have a word for that, it's called "non-secular".

Also notice that it mentions "big crucifixes" so one can assume small ones are acceptable. Maybe that means small headscarfes are alright?

Comments

[slothel.livejournal.com]

Or maybe only people with little tiny heads can wear the scarves.

[hannibull.livejournal.com]

they're trying to do the same thing in my country (Belgium)
it's so stupid... I'm not religious at all, but the choice to wear religious symbols is not in the governments hands...
they're trying to get the bill through because they see headscarfs as a "symbol of religious oppression", but that means that they're only targetting a small group of people, and that would go straight against our anti-discrimination laws
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm :-/

Really I do...

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yes. Let's stick our heads in the sand and pretend religion DOES NOT factor in any society. France certainly tried that after Marie Antoinette had her cake and head served to her on a silver platter. What it net them collectively? Heh.

Anyhows, I hate the French. No offense to their fans; or those who admire the French supposed steadfastness against the horrible aggression of the U.S. in Iraq. I love what Andy Rooney ( a commentator on 60 Minutes (a news documentary style show that broadcasts on Sundays) wrote prior to the US invasion of Iraq:

You can't beat the French when it comes to food, fashion, wine or perfume, but they lost their license to have an opinion on world affairs years ago. They may even be selling stuff to Iraq and don't want to hurt business.The French are simply not reliable partners in a world where the good people in it ought to be working together. Americans may come off as international jerks sometimes but we're usually trying to do the right thing.

The French lost WW II to the Germans in about 20 minutes. Along with the British, we got into the war and had about 150,000 guys killed getting their country back for them. We fought all across France, and the Germans finally surrendered in a French schoolhouse. You'd think that school building in Reims would be a great tourist attraction but it isn't. The French seem embarrassed by it. They don't want to call attention to the fact that we freed them from German occupation.

I heard Steven Spielberg say the French wouldn't even let him film the D-Day scenes in "Saving Private Ryan" on the Normandy beaches. They want people to forget the price we paid getting their country back for them. Americans have a right to protest going to war with Iraq. The French do not. They owe us the independence they flaunt in our face at the U.N. I went into Paris with American troops the day we liberated it, Aug. 25, 1944. It was one of the great days in the history of the world. French women showered American soldiers with kisses, at the very least. The next day, the pompous Charles de Gaulle marched down the mile long Champs Elysee to the Place de la Concorde as if he had liberated France himself. I was there, squeezed in among a hundred tanks we'd given the Free French Army that we brought in with us. Suddenly there were sniper shots from the top of a building. Thousands of Frenchmen who had come to see de Gaulle scrambled to get under something. I got under an Army truck myself. The tank gunners opened fire on the building where the shots had come from, firing mindlessly at nothing. It was a wild scene that lasted, maybe, 10 minutes.

When we go to Paris every couple of years now, I rent a car. I drive around the Place de la Concorde and when some French driver blows his horn for me to get out of his way, I just smile and say to myself, "Go ahead, Pierre. Be my guest. I know something about this very place you'll never know."

The French have not earned their right to oppose President Bush's plans to attack Iraq.

On the other hand, I have.

Re: Really I do...

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

I think that perhaps someone from France might say that the US and France can call it even, given that the USA wouldn't even exist if the French had not given the colonies massive support during the American revolution.

Re: Really I do...

[telemann.livejournal.com]

They didn't give massive support. They sent a fleet of ships that just happened to be at the right place at the right time. Actually the Dutch did more to help the United States with a lot more money and investments.

And actually, we pulled Frances fat out of the fire two times--since you're bean counting.

Re: Really I do...

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that in addition to trapping Cornwallis' soldiers, wasn't most of Washington's army French? The French supplied weapons, clothing, ships, soldiers, and a great deal of investment.

Besides, isn't it a little presumptuous to tell a friend that they should shut up and agree with everything that you say just because you saved them?

Re: Really I do...

[telemann.livejournal.com]

No. Most of Washington's army was NOT French. There were only five battalions at Yorktown (the troops were sent only in 1780 near the end of the war). France also only sided with the colonies after significant victories over the British at Saratoga, and New Jersey.

The Dutch provided a lot more money, and much earlier than the French. France wanted to snub it's nose at the British for obvious reasons.

And I'm not sure your analogy is correct vis a vis a friend and French actions regarding the US and Iraq.

You have your opinion about France. I'm entitled to mine.

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

*dons solidarity Burqa*

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Word sister, me too. Do you think the cute boys will still talk to me with my solidarity scarf on though?

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

The most chic burqas cover the entire body!

And you don't have to worry about not getting attention from the boys. Read this quick lifestyle primer: " Burqa: Inside it you feel free!"

[http://users.livejournal.com/speedy_/]

You are right Brodie, living in Montreal lets you be more open to other communities, people, religion, as well as sexual preferences. The city is so cosmopolitan that you learn how to deal with different things, it also makes you richer, culturally speaking. Like, here it is very normal for people to speak three different languages.

They should be more open and respectful.

[plaidninja.livejournal.com]

"The Islamic hijab is enslaving women, not freeing them,"

Wow, arrogant and stupid. Funny how those two go together so well.

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

As wrong as this law is, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that hijabs are wonderful symbols of female liberation. They're forced on many women, either legally or through family pressure.

And they're yet another example of the sexist belief that women's behaviour is what causes rape and harassment and that men are incapable of controlling themselves around because women are lewd and evil. It's just as bad as telling women that they have to wear thongs and be skinny to be acceptable to men, just the other extreme.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

I definitely have my issues with Islam as well, especially concerning Women's rights. However this legislation is regarding all religious symbols and not addressing those concerns at all.

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree that this law is wrong. I think it's just as wrong to tell someone that they cannot wear a religious symbol as it is to tell someone that they MUST wear a religious symbol. I was just responding to what I saw in some comments from others which seemed to suggest that they thought that the hijab was not a symbol of the oppression of women (and for the record, yes, we're not perfect here in the West either, just a whole lot better.)

[plaidninja.livejournal.com]

I think it's a bit short sighted to say that hijab is a symbol of the oppression of women. I'm sure it is for some people, but it doesn't have to be and for many people is not. I agree that many muslim women are oppressed but one can observe hijab and not be oppressed. There are many progressive and free thinking muslim women who do wear head coverings.
I'm reminded of the early womens-lib movement when women who chose to stay in the kitchen were stigmatized as being backward and oppressed.

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

I'll just chime in to agree with that. There are many places where wearing a hijab isn't considered compulsory, and so wearing it has become a "muslim pride" symbol for women. I know that's the case in Canada and Australia, as well as less conservative areas of Indonesia and the Middle East.

And probably many other places too.

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

Have you listened to some of the reasons those women give? Typically it's along the lines of "Wearing a hijab keeps me from being a sex object for men," as if men's advances towards them are their fault and not the men's. It's a totally backward way of thinking in which women are sinful, lustful, sexual creatures who have to be covered or restrained, and men are pure but easily oh so easily led astray by these evil women. It's the kind of shit that stupid religions like Christianity and Islam have foisted on us for millenia, and it's total garbage.

Besides, just because something isn't legally required doesn't mean it's not compulsory. It's just as much brainwashing as it is for boys who grow up in a homophobic environment and turn into self-loathing closet cases -- it may not be illegal to be gay, but society will sure as hell make it difficult. They may not be "forced" to, but it's made clear that they will be ostracized if they don't.

To give you an example, there's a female student intern who used to work at my work whose parents were going to ship her off to India for an arranged marriage she didn't want to go for. When I asked her why she just didn't say no, she told me she couldn't. Why not, I asked. "I just couldn't." For many women who "choose" to wear a hijab, it's not a choice at all. And even for those who really do, it still is a symbol of sexist attitudes and mediaeval ways of thinking about sex.

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

You're just saying that because you're a Virgo.

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

I appreciate what you're saying, and agree with you. And ultimately, to my mind, our white-male opinions on these matters are secondary considerations at best.

I'm pretty confident that there is a struggle for women's freedom to be waged within the Muslim world — but I'm just as confident that any such liberation can only be the work of Muslim women themselves, defined on their own terms.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a place for Western support, but it should be (1) culturally sensitive and (2) asked for.

[sultmhoor.livejournal.com]

I think it's a bit short sighted to say that hijab is a symbol of the oppression of women.

Right, since many American Muslim women are paid to wear the hijab (so Muslim women can be more.. uh... "visible") you can make the argument it's liberating.

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

So Scotland's a bit behind on the news then?

If you were in Canada, you would have heard this news weeks ago. It was a big story last month. (I know because I read globeandmail.com.)

Of course, I haven't heard anything about it from the Australian media yet.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

No, but the global protest was today.

The Irony

[abearius.livejournal.com]

The irony in this debate is that the major religions involved have scripture banning representation of the deity. It would seem a short trip on the same track to just dump the team badges.

Of course, the debate is not theological, but cultural; people have a need for flags and team jackets to identify each other. Even the most image-poor religions (Islam, Judaism, Congregationalist Christianity, some Buddhists, etc.) have symbols that identify themselves to others. In addition to these symbols, other poular representations of religious affiliation involve how you dress your women (usually covered) and what you do with your penis(usually uncovered).

Will they ban circumcision, too? Is her a corollary relationship between foreskinless penises and women dressed like bee keepers?

...just kidding...

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

>>Is there a corollary relationship between foreskinless penises and women dressed like bee keepers?

Yeah: They're both HOT!

;-)