Althouse: Saving women from sexist oppression/taking away their religious freedom.

April 11, 2011

Saving women from sexist oppression/taking away their religious freedom.

France bans the veil:

98 comments:

Palladian said...: Nothing ruins Paris in the spring like the appearance of a Ringwraith.; 4/11/11, 12:15 PM
Lincolntf said...: I suppose there is such a thing as the freedom to be enslaved, but is that something we should be worried about protecting?; 4/11/11, 12:18 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Palladian, another monitor and keyboard ruined by coffee protectiling through my mouth and nose. I wish I had a veil to contain the mess.; 4/11/11, 12:19 PM
Scott M said...: I suppose there is such a thing as the freedom to be enslaved

I dunno about that. Do you have the freedom to place a personal ad begging for someone to kill and eat you? It seemed a good idea for few Germans a couple years back.; 4/11/11, 12:21 PM
Velocon said...: The religious freedom argument might have more weight if she had the freedom to leave Islam without the penalty of death given to apostates under sharia.; 4/11/11, 12:24 PM
Expat(ish) said...: Only 200 women wearing that?

Five years ago when I was in Paris I saw at least 200 women wandering around a non-tourist area fully covered.

It must be a much larger number.

Cruddy reporting.

_XC; 4/11/11, 12:26 PM
Dose of Sanity said...: @ Velocon - Murder is illegal in france. The religious freedom should absolutely trump here.

Sarkozy must be feeling threatened...Libya, Ivory Coast, Veil Bans - this guy is all over the place.; 4/11/11, 12:27 PM
Scott M said...: Libya, Ivory Coast, Veil Bans - this guy is all over the place.

Maybe Sarkozy is being haunted by a short ghost with a penchant for putting his right hand inside his coat's gig line.; 4/11/11, 12:29 PM
Methadras said...: Palladian said...

Nothing ruins Paris in the spring like the appearance of a Ringwraith.

Nice. I thought the same thing. Those damn Nazgul ruin everything when they land Nazgul in France? I'm sure the Satorialist is getting ready to post the new Nazgul fashions to hit the runways.; 4/11/11, 12:30 PM
traditionalguy said...: The Masters of War Corporation in France must be into selling cosmetics instead of armaments now. I love the smell of Profiteering in the morning.; 4/11/11, 12:31 PM
coketown said...: Blame Barbie.; 4/11/11, 12:33 PM
Dose of Sanity said...: Maybe Sarkozy is being haunted by a short ghost with a penchant for putting his right hand inside his coat's gig line.

He is pretty anti-Russian, haha. We should invite Sarkozy to an Island for an "extended stay" and see how he reacts.; 4/11/11, 12:34 PM
Lucien said...: As troublingly paternalistic as it sounds this is, perhaps, a good idea. I suppose the analogous case in the U.S. concerns the reporting and prosecution of spousal abuse: the only way to protect victims from intimidation and furher violence is to take away their ability to "drop the charges" or otherwise refuse to testify. DOes this lead to unfortunate unintended consequences at the margin? Yes, it does. But we generally judge these as outwieighed by overall benefits. As I said, it's disturbingly paternalistic.

In France, there will be some women who really would prefer to wear the veil out of genuine religious conviction, rather than fear, or peer, or parental pressure. Their rights to do so will suffer in order to provide freedom for those women who would wish to have the same rights concerning dress that other people living n France do.; 4/11/11, 12:34 PM
Dose of Sanity said...: As troublingly paternalistic as it sounds this is, perhaps, a good idea. I suppose the analogous case in the U.S. concerns the reporting and prosecution of spousal abuse: the only way to protect victims from intimidation and furher violence is to take away their ability to "drop the charges" or otherwise refuse to testify. DOes this lead to unfortunate unintended consequences at the margin? Yes, it does. But we generally judge these as outwieighed by overall benefits. As I said, it's disturbingly paternalistic.

In France, there will be some women who really would prefer to wear the veil out of genuine religious conviction, rather than fear, or peer, or parental pressure. Their rights to do so will suffer in order to provide freedom for those women who would wish to have the same rights concerning dress that other people living n France do.

Your entire post is premised on the idea that most muslim women would prefer not to wear the veil. (That most muslim women don't really want to be muslim?)

Don't project...it's not easy to resist sometimes.; 4/11/11, 12:37 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "I suppose there is such a thing as the freedom to be enslaved, but is that something we should be worried about protecting?"

Let's abolish marriage then.; 4/11/11, 12:37 PM
Scott M said...: Let's abolish marriage then.

Yes, let's. Far too many men suffer.; 4/11/11, 12:40 PM
traditionalguy said...: While they are at it , I reccommend forbidding men to wear red power ties.; 4/11/11, 12:42 PM
Lincolntf said...: Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get the parallel (or your point).; 4/11/11, 12:43 PM
Leland said...: Let's abolish marriage then.

Let's bring back chastity belts!; 4/11/11, 12:43 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: The purpose of banning the veil is not to "save women from sexist oppression", it's to send out the message that France is not a Muslim country. Same reason that Switzerland banned minarets.

The French do understand symbolism.; 4/11/11, 12:47 PM
bagoh20 said...: Just image the freedom IT BRINGS: No make-up, no dieting, no worries about being unfashionably dressed. Hell, you could wear diapers, or a florescent jock strap under that and be free to enjoy it. Just you and your man know the mysteries of your public experimentation. I see supa-freak.; 4/11/11, 12:53 PM
Lincolntf said...: The veil is just a symptom. There are large swaths of urban France dominated by Sharia-like rules and institutions. The oh-so enlightened Euros probably prefer that they remain ghetto-ized so that they don't have to deal with the reality of oppression under Islam. These are the same people who would flip out if someone across the ocean made a sexist slur, but are all too willing to avert their eyes from the systemic subjugation of women just a few arrondisements away.; 4/11/11, 12:53 PM
Leland said...: I agree with Maguro. It's indeed oppression with the intent to protect French customs. Do I care? No more than I care that US states ban polygamy, which goes against Sharia law as well.

OMG, we are oppressing people right here in the US, even in WI. People should protest in the capitol!; 4/11/11, 12:59 PM
Unknown said...: The French are big into conformity, apparently. They fought to have women photographed on driver's licenses without the veil, too.

Liberte, egalite, fraternite have a different meaning over there.

Ann Althouse said...

"I suppose there is such a thing as the freedom to be enslaved, but is that something we should be worried about protecting?"

Let's abolish marriage then.

You assume marriage is slavery. some view it as freedom to enter a new dimension in life.; 4/11/11, 1:00 PM
Sofa King said...: The religious freedom argument might have more weight if she had the freedom to leave Islam without the penalty of death given to apostates under sharia.

So come down like a ton of bricks on enforcers of that penalty, and let people wear whatever they choose to. Is this really so hard?; 4/11/11, 1:00 PM
bagoh20 said...: Are we willing to allow a child in our nation to grow up forced to following religious principles and then have her marriage arraigned for her, have her forced to marry, bear children, dress in such a way all under penalty of murder if she refuses?

Of course a person should be free to choose these things, but do they...choose? Would a Christian, secular, or cult family be able to do the same without our authorities intervening?; 4/11/11, 1:03 PM
Dose of Sanity said...: So come down like a ton of bricks on enforcers of that penalty, and let people wear whatever they choose to. Is this really so hard?

Damn, I hate agreeing with Sofa King, but that was exactly my point.; 4/11/11, 1:04 PM
bagoh20 said...: "So come down like a ton of bricks on enforcers of that penalty"

Well, murder is already a capital crime, I hope you don't mean making murder a hate crime resulting in super secret double probation. That's going to far in a civilized nation.; 4/11/11, 1:10 PM
Ironclad said...: The veil is a symbol of male ownership of the woman - no man but her husband (and direct male relatives) can look at her. More to the point - it is also her saying to the world that she is a temptress and must be hidden to avoid inciting other men. You notice in the video that hubby is dressed normally - and the boys in the videos are wearing shorts. In Saudi Arabia I used to see husbands in shots and tank tops in the summer walking with their veiled wives, sweating under the black cloth. Makes you want to be ill.

Typical BBC production too - totally slanted and ignoring the fact that that these people are setting up an alternate society in France that takes and give back nothing.

We used to call them Ninjas or Glad Bags too. It fits. And I can assure you that when I was on an airplane leaving there the women tossed off the abiyahs (full veil) as soon as the plane was in the air.; 4/11/11, 1:10 PM
bagoh20 said...: There should be only one word for any thing or idea in English and it should have only one definition and one pronunciation. In other words, I can't spell.; 4/11/11, 1:12 PM
ricpic said...: Feminists have no problem with Islam. Go figger.; 4/11/11, 1:13 PM
Sofa King said...: Well, murder is already a capital crime

In some states. Under aggravated circumstances.

But more to the point, it's more about making sure that perps are caught, tried, and removed from society, and that threats and attempts are treated seriously.; 4/11/11, 1:14 PM
bagoh20 said...: So if you have a lesbian couple, do they both wear one or ...? And do gay male couples have one in a veil. That would be convenient.; 4/11/11, 1:15 PM
Ken B said...: A better question Ann, is "should we outlaw polygamy then?" That's less tendentious, which is why you didn't ask it, but it is more on point.; 4/11/11, 1:20 PM
Sofa King said...: Here's the marriage analogy as I see it: one of the most common causes of domestic violence and homicide is spouses cheating. Now, they agreed to be faithful when they got married, so we can deduce from revealed preferences that some partners lied or changed their minds about that commitment. But that revelation can cause violence when the other partner finds out.

So. Is the solution to ban marriage? Because people who renege their personal commitments - something fully within their rights - might provoke a violent response?; 4/11/11, 1:20 PM
Lincolntf said...: Come on bag, you know the answer. Lesbian Muslims don't have heads, so they don't need veils.; 4/11/11, 1:21 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

In France this works because:
1) There’s no 1st Amendment;
2) There’s a long-history of “anti-clericalism” and governmental secularism.
None of that obtains in the US, so it’s not really an option. As a "l”ibertarian I’m in the Sofa/Maguro camp….wear the Veil, if you want. HOWEVER, if you leave Islam, or marry outside the arrangement, or have pre-marital sex, the society protects you and doesn’t think it’s just a quaint custom of your culture to murder the apostate Sl(t.; 4/11/11, 1:21 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Come on bag, you know the answer. Lesbian Muslims don't have heads, so they don't need veils.
There are NO “Lesbian/Gay” Muslims. That is a Western Cultural Construct being forced upon the “Other” in Cultural Imperialism and Orientalism. Those Muslims that embrace “gay/Lesbian” lifestyles are simply leaving their, authentic, culture in a form of false consciousness, designed to curry favour with their Western “betters.” It is akin to the Hegelian concepts of Master/Slave…in this case the “Gay/Lesbian” Muslim is in the role of “slave” to the, illegitimately, dominat Western sexual ethos.

This is NOT hard people, you simply need to shed the cultural blinders of your Imperialism and Provincialism.; 4/11/11, 1:27 PM
KCFleming said...: "But democracy can defend itself only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy. His aim of destroying democracy itself, of actively seeking an absolute monopoly of power, is shrewdly hidden behind the citizen's right to oppose and criticize the system."

Paradoxically, democracy offers those seeking to abolish it a unique opportunity to work against it legally. They can even receive almost open support from the external enemy without its being seen as a truly serious violation of the social contract. The frontier is vague, the transition easy between the status of a loyal opponent wielding a privilege built into democratic institutions and that of an adversary subverting those institutions. To totalitarianism, an opponent is by definition subversive; democracy treats subversives as mere opponents for fear of betraying it principles."
Jean-François Revel; 4/11/11, 1:36 PM
traditionalguy said...: Seriously, wearing the veil when in France is a deliberate assertion of the Moors new victory over the Franks, and not wearing the veil is an assertion of the Franks victory over the Moors. Muslims are always at war with their god's infidels.; 4/11/11, 1:44 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: What's not mentioned in the video is that, when veiled women arrive in French parks, etc., a gloom comes over the environment that's palpable. Forget sexism, the veil screams "terrorist" to everyone - who else is walking around completely covered like Cousin It?

Nobody trusts them, nobody respects them - everything says "We're different and we don't like or respect the rest of you." So why should anyone kow-tow to them?

I'm surprised France is doing it - we ought to be as well.; 4/11/11, 1:44 PM
Unknown said...: What Joe said in his first comment, especially point 2.

ricpic said...

Feminists have no problem with Islam. Go figger.

It's called dhimmitude - cowardice glossed over with PC.; 4/11/11, 1:49 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

I'm surprised France is doing it - we ought to be as well.
I’m not surprised and No, we shouldn’t….
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… .

Yeah you can talk about Polygamy, and you’d be right, in a theoretical sense, but in today’s intellectual/legal climate I don’t think you can nor do I think you SHOULD ban the veil/burqua.

There are CERTAIN “legitimate government purposes” that can over-ride the 1st…but they are limited.; 4/11/11, 1:52 PM
Scott M said...: but in today’s intellectual/legal climate I don’t think you can nor do I think you SHOULD ban the veil/burqua

Can you ban minarets? I should sincerely hope so.

How about five-times-a-day loudspeaker calls to prayer city wide? Can you force all fast-food chains to split their restaurants in two with separate "family" and men-only entrances?; 4/11/11, 1:56 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Can you ban minarets? I should sincerely hope so.

How about five-times-a-day loudspeaker calls to prayer city wide? Can you force all fast-food chains to split their restaurants in two with separate "family" and men-only entrances?
Nope, Gingrich’s Congress passed the Freedom to Worship act, to prevent Planning and Zoning from preventing churches from building, or rebuilding or reconstructing…so UNLESS you are going to argue US Law ought apply only to the “Right” church, No you can’t and should ban minarets. Unless you want to ban onion domes, steeples, and the like…because if they can get the local Islamic “temple” they can “get” your synagogue, church, or cathedral, or Shambalic Prayer Centre. The Swiss banned a silly thing, minarets….they ought to have been banning “honour killings” and arranged marriages, tapping ‘phone lines and inserting Federal Agents into local mosques to check on “radicalization.”

Yes you COULD ban loud prayer, but you’d have to make it content neutral and show a legitimate governmental purpose, such as “quiet enjoyment of property” and to “prevent disturbance of the peace.” You’d have to be pretty precise and careful in how you banned loud religious externalities. You CAN’T ban the “Azan” UNLESS you also ban the ringing of cathedral bells and the various Hours of Prayer, Matins, Vespers, and the like.
To have to entrances, smacks too much of the “Whites Only” and “Coloured Only” drinking fountains/restrooms/waiting rooms….I think you’d have a really hard time to justify it, in today’s society.; 4/11/11, 2:06 PM
rhhardin said...: Fortunately dancers can still use fans.; 4/11/11, 2:10 PM
Sofa King said...: Can you force all fast-food chains to split their restaurants in two with separate "family" and men-only entrances?

No, but I would say you couldn't force them NOT to either.; 4/11/11, 2:14 PM
Jane the Actuary said...: How's this: it's not religious freedom, but public safety. I think it's entirely legitimate to say that people should be prohibited from hiding their identity completely in public spaces. Don't you?; 4/11/11, 2:15 PM
knox said...: Good for them. It's dangerous to start accommodating freakish religious practices. You end up with crazy things like "adult swim" for Muslim women only.; 4/11/11, 2:15 PM
Scott M said...: No, but I would say you couldn't force them NOT to either.

I'm not sure about that at all. It's the equivalent, as was previously said, of race-based bathrooms along with a denial of service and removal (with police) from the property if the rule isn't adhered to.

I made the mistake of walking into a Pizza Hut in Dharan, SA with two blond airmen (airpeople?). Granted, we were all in BDU's, but we weren't told about the separate entrances during in-brief and there was an immediate uproar from both the workers and the other patrons.; 4/11/11, 2:19 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

How's this: it's not religious freedom, but public safety. I think it's entirely legitimate to say that people should be prohibited from hiding their identity completely in public spaces. Don't you?
Get back to me when your yarmulke is considered a disguise, or a mantilla, or your Crucifix or Star of David, is an “edged” weapon and a “public danger.”

Good for them. It's dangerous to start accommodating freakish religious practices. You end up with crazy things like "adult swim" for Muslim women only.

To an extent you’re correct, but I don’t have a problem with “Womon’s Only” hours at the gym or pool….it’s religiously neutral. It may put Lesbians and Muslim Womyn together, for all the fun that will generate, but I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it…

I’d have a problem if Muslims said ALL public pools needed to conform to Shari’a Law.; 4/11/11, 2:21 PM
Lincolntf said...: " I think it's entirely legitimate to say that people should be prohibited from hiding their identity completely in public spaces. Don't you?"

I think, though I'm not sure, that a similar ban on being masked in public was used to discourage the KKK way back when.; 4/11/11, 2:23 PM
Clyde said...: France's problem isn't the religious garb of an alien culture but the fact that they have an alien culture growing in their midst that doesn't share their beliefs and values, and indeed is antithetical to them.

Getting rid of the veils solves nothing. The banlieux remain.; 4/11/11, 2:23 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

The problem is NOT Muslims or Islam, just like the problem was NOT the Irish, Catholicism, the Jews or Judaism….the problem was Meyer Lanskii or Jews that wouldn’t or won’t assimilate, or Irish Fenians, waging their war against the United Kingdom, from the United States.

I don’t care if your Muslim or Polish National Catholic or an Atheist, what I can’t be having is “you” hating America and deciding that EVERYONE needs to be Muslim, Polish Catholic or an Atheist, and being willing to kill the apostate to achieve your goal.; 4/11/11, 2:25 PM
Quaestor said...: Expat(ish) wrote: Cruddy reporting

It's Al Jazeera. Curb your expectations.; 4/11/11, 2:32 PM
KCFleming said...: "what I can’t be having is “you” hating America and deciding that EVERYONE needs to be Muslim, Polish Catholic or an Atheist, and being willing to kill the apostate to achieve your goal."

Are their Muslims that argue for such religious freedom anywhere?; 4/11/11, 2:33 PM
traditionalguy said...: Interestingly enough, the act of freeing of Muslim women from servitude to Muslim men is the achilles heel of the Muslim world. Win that one and also deny the Domination Chant cpmong from from high towers holding loudspeakers 5 times a day and the Muslim world will collapse.; 4/11/11, 2:36 PM
knox said...: The pool set aside hours for Muslim women only, with a female lifeguard. And the more we accommodate, the more they tend to demand.

If radical Muslims didn't run around stoning or killing people who offend them, I wouldn't care either. Or if moderates were more vociferous in their condemnation.

We have to return their "zero tolerance" policies in kind. They created these unfortunate circumstances, not us.; 4/11/11, 2:41 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Are their Muslims that argue for such religious freedom anywhere?

The one in my town aren’t demanding Shari’a for everyone and dhimmitude for those that don‘t convert…..

Sure I’d LOVE everyone to be an Orthodox Jew (or would I?) but I don’t expect it any time soon. The Muslims I’ve met, don’t seem intent on “converting” this “Yid” (??) via a sword and screaming “Allahu Akhbar” on a YouTube video….They seemed rather intent on getting the congregation to cough up some more money for their summer camp and roust out a few more volunteers to chaperone the summer camp. It sounded all pretty familiar to me.

But:
1) It’s anecdotal;
2) Was awhile ago;
3) And I come from a “provincial” area the number of mosques is low, and ergo the variety of Muslim is large. This “Mosque” had Indians, Malaysians, Filipinos, Saudis, and White Guyz are in pretty much equal numbers. I’m sure that in NYC or Chicago you can find a Mosque that caters to pretty much any Islamic taste.; 4/11/11, 2:41 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

The pool set aside hours for Muslim women only, with a female lifeguard. And the more we accommodate, the more they tend to demand.

That’s a personal problem….If you’ll pardon me. My child, assuming I have any, may make a compelling case to go to the dance next week…and upon me having acquiesced; s/he may now ask to be allowed to spend all night out or at least significantly past their normal curfew. Just because I grant one, seeing it a reasonable request, does not mean I agree to ALL demands. If your town fathers can’t draw a line beyond which they cannot go, I’d recommend you replace them.; 4/11/11, 2:46 PM
Quaestor said...: Muslims yelp so piteously about human rights and freedom of religion except when ______

Go on, fill in the blank. I dare you.; 4/11/11, 2:49 PM
Scott M said...: That’s a personal problem….If you’ll pardon me.

Not necessarily. It can create political inertia to get more and bigger changes to the fabric of the host society.; 4/11/11, 2:52 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Interestingly enough, the act of freeing of Muslim women from servitude to Muslim men is the achilles heel of the Muslim world.

Do you know what some Jews think is the biggest threat to Judaism in the World is? It’s not Iranian nuclear weapons or Islamo-Fascism. It’s ….America…or “Assimilation” in general. There are fewer and fewer, “Jews”…those who practice Judaism…there may be a few Adam Sandlers, but there are a whole lot more Seinfeld’s and the like, who are ‘culturally” Jewish, but don’t attend Synagogue or Temple. We marry outside our faith, and our children are only “Jewish” in the sense that Nanna or Grampa are Jewish, and so there is a patina of “being Jewish” but as to the reality no, they’re not Jews.

I imagine that the same threat and fate awaits Muslims in America.

My point is IF we can get Muslims to behave like you and I, even if they eat halal their children will be a whole lot less “Muslim.” BUT, we do have to keep the idea of “assimilation” alive and require Muslims AND guilty White Guyz to drop this PC Multi-Culti stuff.; 4/11/11, 2:54 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Not necessarily. It can create political inertia to get more and bigger changes to the fabric of the host society.

I agree it CAN…but democracy means being engaged…and if the majority isn’t going to bother being engaged they get the government they deserve/want….; 4/11/11, 2:59 PM
KCFleming said...: "The one in my town aren’t demanding Shari’a for everyone and dhimmitude for those that don‘t convert"

...yet.

They've learned how to use democracy to achieve those ends. England has been very compliant in their shift to sharia.

Make no mistake, "Joe the Crypto Jew", you'll be tolerated only so long as they need you. After that, not at all.; 4/11/11, 3:04 PM
KCFleming said...: Moreover, not ' demanding Shari’a for everyone and dhimmitude for those that don‘t convert' is not the same thing as supporting religious tolerance.

Not the same thing at all.; 4/11/11, 3:05 PM
Quaestor said...: The burka ban is nothing more or less than the French protecting their culture, something they've done for a long time.; 4/11/11, 3:07 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

...yet.

They've learned how to use democracy to achieve those ends. England has been very compliant in their shift to sharia.

Make no mistake, "Joe the Crypto Jew", you'll be tolerated only so long as they need you. After that, not at all.

That’s because Blair’s Labour Party believed in Multi-Culti nonsense…

I’m not convinced that your “average” Muslim feels any different about me than I feel about him/her…”Poor Bugger. Hasn’t seen the light. Wouldn’t want to be him/her when they face Yhwh/Allah.” And that’s when we think about our religion(s)…I imagine most of the time we are thinking, “D@mn s/he’s teh hawt!” and “What Gas/Petrol is $4.00 a gallon F&ck!”; 4/11/11, 3:10 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

is not the same thing as supporting religious tolerance.

Not the same thing at all.

Yeah it IS. Look dood/doodette there is NO doubt we Jews are the Apple of Yhwh’s Eye…He made His Covenant with US. You want in at the end, might think about becoming one of the Chosen People. See I KNOW my religion is right…I’m just not advocating it’s tenets as Public Policy. THAT’S “religious tolerance.” Ishaak not advocating Shari’a is religious tolerance…doesn’t mean he accepts my religion as true, I don’t accept HIS, and I don’t necessarily accept my Catholic neighbors as “saved.” But the Yid, the Towel Head, and the Mackerel Snapper can live side-by-side and that is being tolerant. To the extent that Ishaak is not trying to make Shari’a Law THE law, he’s practicing tolerance.; 4/11/11, 3:15 PM
KCFleming said...: "To the extent that Ishaak is not trying to make Shari’a Law THE law, he’s practicing tolerance."

But he is, in small steps, doing so.

Your blindness to it is unimportant, even useful.; 4/11/11, 3:25 PM
Leland said...: There are CERTAIN “legitimate government purposes” that can over-ride the 1st…but they are limited.

1st what? Do you mean the French 1st article for Rights of Women: “Woman is born free and remains equal to man in rights. Social distinctions may only be based on common utility”.; 4/11/11, 3:29 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

But he is, in small steps, doing so.

Your blindness to it is unimportant, even useful.

Thank you Mr. Beck. I’m not entirely convinced that there is an “Islam” that is out to do anything, just like I’m not convinced there is a “Christianity” that is out to do anything…there are MUSLIMS and CHRISTIANS with plans, but they don’t represent all Muslims or Christians, and many of their “plans” run at cross-purposes…I’m not sure an Alawite, a Shi’I, a Sufi, and a Hanbali Sunni would share a vision for America or would give up the status quo, on the off chance that THOSE people might come out on top….

I have no problems with Mosaic Law being Public Policy, UNLESS Its Lubavitch Mosaic Law…and so in order to prevent having to put up with schmucks like that in charge….I’ll go with what we got. I believe most Muslims think the same way….sure IF we were all Shi’i Muslims life would be great, but what if the SUFI’S got in charge?

So I’m not convinced that all anything think alike and are pulling, coherently, towards a common goal, Islamic, Judaic, or Christian……Unless your sect is and has some secret plan I think if you look at your own life you’ll see it, and if it’s true for you it’s most likely true for Ishaak.; 4/11/11, 3:32 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

1st what? Do you mean the French 1st article for Rights of Women: “Woman is born free and remains equal to man in rights. Social distinctions may only be based on common utility”.

No dood/doodette the US FIRST AMENDMENT, this is the Internet, we speak American and think American…especially on a blog that covers Madison Wisconsin, AMERICA….

And for some l33t sp3ak….”AFK”……; 4/11/11, 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Come to America, and wear your niqab if you want. You'll certainly feel uncomfortable wearing it, but hey, that may be what a girl has to do to declare her love of not just God, but the culture and customs of a band of desert tribes, formed into a civilization that won't let you leave the house unattended.

True, maybe we'll wage an extended military campaign against the violent and radical among you who killed us here in the name of their religion, but it isn't against the law at the moment.

We didn't cut the heads off of those we disagreed with, though, so on that count, you and the French will have something in common.

Liberte for me and not for thee.; 4/11/11, 3:38 PM
jimspice said...: This would be an excellent post for one of your polls. "Do you agree with the French government's banning of muslim religious garb? Yes. No." Or are you too afraid that the sentiment of your regular readers would disgust you?; 4/11/11, 3:43 PM
dbp said...: I think Betsy is on the right track here.

Other religious symbols and garb do not obscure the face.; 4/11/11, 3:44 PM
KCFleming said...: @Joe: "I’m not entirely convinced that there is an “Islam” that is out to do anything"

Your ex post facto realization will be a boon for all of us, I'm sure.; 4/11/11, 3:48 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Ironclad‬ , were you faked out by the British reporter? Not BBC. Al Jazeera's logo is up throughout the video.; 4/11/11, 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Charles Martel, nous ici!; 4/11/11, 4:08 PM
Methadras said...: Looking at that again, I'd say that someone let Darth Sidious out to look for Darth Vader.; 4/11/11, 4:13 PM
Issob Morocco said...: Is it truly their own religious freedom or the patriarchal/tribal like religious requirement of the Muslim culture?

Put your money on the latter.; 4/11/11, 4:46 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: The whole Islam v. religious freedom thing isn't worth worrying about--it won't be a problem much longer. The Chinese will soon be taking over the world, and they aren't afraid to kick the ass of any religion that annoys them.; 4/11/11, 4:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Let's abolish marriage then.

I happily become to be a slave soon !; 4/11/11, 5:44 PM
William said...: Those old west bigots always used to give the Lone Ranger a hard time for wearing a mask. And properly so. We want to see who we're dealing with--the grimaces, smiles, frowns and assorted tells that lets us know what's in the other person's hand......I think the veil is not the symptom of male domination, but the cause of it. A pretty girl has quite a lot of leverage over a man. Take that away from her and make her some kind of formless black blob and you are taking away her power cards. Flirtatious gestures, kind smiles, bored expressions: these are all part of the tools that women to share power with men.; 4/11/11, 6:12 PM
Phil 314 said...: Jimspice wrote:

This would be an excellent post for one of your polls. "Do you agree with the French government's banning of muslim religious garb? Yes. No."

No, absolutely not. And I'm glad we have the 1st amendment in the US. You all understand that France's law regarding secularism could ban the wearing of a cross in public?

Or are you too afraid that the sentiment of your regular readers would disgust you?

No, I'm appalled at the reactions. Can you hide a bomb under a yamulke? What could a Sikh hide in his turban?; 4/11/11, 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Betsy is right. We have the right to see the face of those we do business with, share public transport with etc.

Lets stop pretending all religions are treated equally in this country. The Hasidim live close together and clash with surrounding communities pretty regularly. Whatever kind of Christian fundamental religion those Duggars are even their own family seems to think they are nuts. Not to forget the Amish who we actually have turned into a tourist attraction. The Muslims are trying to mainstream the idea that women need to hide their hair in public. This sickens me. Let those who choose to wear niqab or burqa become tourist attractions next to the Amish or live in isolated communities.; 4/11/11, 6:19 PM
ken in tx said...: Many states have laws prohibiting the covering of one's face in public. These laws were passed because of the KKK. However, they apply to everyone.; 4/11/11, 6:32 PM
Phil 314 said...: Let those who choose to wear niqab or burqa become tourist attractions next to the Amish or live in isolated communities.

Word for today:

ghetto; 4/11/11, 6:42 PM
Phil 314 said...: Many states have laws prohibiting the covering of one's face in public. These laws were passed because of the KKK. However, they apply to everyone.

Enforcement presumably suspended on Oct. 31st each year.; 4/11/11, 6:53 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Joe (The Crypto Jew),

Even as an atheist, I would normally side with you here - and still do applaud your efforts - but I think, my friend, on this one you're wrong. Muslims have set themselves apart in a manner unlike everyone else on the planet, and I can no more respect that than I can blacks I meet who claim they're not Americans - both are full of shit and deserve whatever they've got coming.

This is not "the free exercise of religion" but a demand the West assimilates to them - a demand we must meet head-on. What we have is ours, and has more value, and we must be willing to defend it, especially now, when they've made it abundantly clear they're on the attack.

This is no time to be politically correct, trying to accommodate the desires of those ever-elusive "moderate" Muslims, but a time for diligence. As President Bush said, you're either with us or with the terrorists - period. And, intentionally, there ain't a lot of wiggle room there.

It's time to decide - and if a rag over your head is more important than freedom, then so be it:

Get the fuck out.; 4/11/11, 7:14 PM
ken in tx said...: Hey Phil, These laws were passed when cops were expected to have common sense. BTW, did you know that the town of Philippi was founded by Philip II, father of Alexander the Great. I used to use that as an excuse to introduce my social studies students to the Bible and the Book of Philippians.; 4/11/11, 7:27 PM
Phil 314 said...: ken;
did you know that the town of Philippi was founded by Philip II, father of Alexander the Great. I used to use that as an excuse to introduce my social studies students to the Bible and the Book of Philippians.

Yes I did. And it shouldn't have to be a "trick" to teach history or social studies students details of the Bible. I mean those early Christians did have a significant impact on the Roman empire (and other events later).

Now we get:

spring spheres; 4/11/11, 10:51 PM
Kunoichi said...: Normally, I disagree with government interferance with personal choices, but when it comes to face veiling, I agree with France. If Althouse is okay with my linking, I have a rather long explaination of why I posted late last year.; 4/12/11, 1:59 AM
wdnelson93 said...: Crack - the language I try to ignore, but a hearty "hear, hear!" to your sentiment.

Deanna; 4/12/11, 2:38 AM
Leland said...: @Joe US FIRST AMENDMENT, this is the Internet, we speak American and think American…especially on a blog that covers Madison Wisconsin, AMERICA….

Well at this point, I lost complete respect for your opinion. It seems you don't think France should pass laws that restrict the free practice of religion. At the same time, you think all people in all nations must livee under US law. Why can't the French practice their own freedom of law? Their actions aren't harming you on the internet or in Wisconsin.; 4/12/11, 6:11 AM
Chris said...: Veils are barbaric and there's no place for them in a civilized society. Should we allow the practice of throwing acid in the faces of women if the majority of Muslim women consider the practice an appropriate punishment? The religious freedom argument is a half-hearted devil's advocate copout.; 4/12/11, 11:54 AM
Stogie said...: France's problem isn't the religious garb of an alien culture but the fact that they have an alien culture growing in their midst that doesn't share their beliefs and values, and indeed is antithetical to them.

Very well said, Clyde. Don't just ban the Burka, ban Islam altogether. The 21st Century and the 7th Century don't coexist well. Burkas, scimitars, honor killings, female genital mutilation, wife beating and Jew murder are all antithetical to Western Civ. End Islamic immigration into the West. That is the only solution in the long term. Encourage those already here to leave.; 4/12/11, 10:46 PM
Anonymous said...: France is not the United States, so I hesitate to project our laws/culture/values on their society. If that were to happen here, though, I would wonder if the ban applied to Halloween, as well.; 4/12/11, 11:05 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)