That is, by far, the most up-voted comment (out of 708 comments) at the NYT article titled "Muslim Frenchwomen Struggle With Discrimination as Bans on Veils Expand."
I want to say that the answer to that question is obvious: Because we have a strong belief in religious freedom and personal expression. But I can't say "we," because I'm not French. From the article:
Mainstream politicians... say they [support the ban] for the benefit of public order or in the name of laïcité, the French term for the separation of church and state.... The concept of laïcité was developed during the French Revolution, and was intended to limit the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in the government.A little more detail on that:
The strict separation of church and state... has evolved into what some religious leaders see as a "form of political correctness that made bringing religion into public affairs a major taboo." Former President Sarkozy initially criticised this approach as a "negative laïcité" and wanted to develop a "positive laïcité" that recognizes the contribution of faith to French culture, history and society, allows for faith in the public discourse and for government subsidies for faith-based groups. Sarkozy saw France's main religions as positive contributions to French society... Sarkozy later changed footing on the place of religion in French society, by publicly declaring the burqa "not welcome" in France in 2009 and favoring legislation to outlaw it....
पोस्ट्स
६७ टिप्पण्या:
Someone -- an entrepreneur -- needs to start a 'Respectable' clothing line, with the name emblazoned across the breast, with clothes that are anything but.
Maybe it's been done already. (Deciding not to google it).
What? These clothes are *very* "Respectable"
It's foolish to apply Western Ideas to other countries. I'd rather cherish my freedom. Lead by example, and publicize.
Are French Roman Catholic nuns also forbidden to wear a veil in public? The article mentions skullcaps and large crosses, but I think the parallel to nuns is closest.
Thing is, France is a secular society without a strong religious tradition the way we have. I'm more likely to see an Amish woman wearing a long dress with a bonnet covering her hair than a Muslim in a hijab. I have no desire to see either banned.
Why compare what "Arab Muslims" do versus what "Europeans" should do?
Is Islam a political, nationalistic ideology such as are found throughout different European countries?
Is there more variability among "Arab Muslims" or "Europeans" and if so how can this cloud our judgment when comparing the two?
I see fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, and that is even after I stop looking in mirrors.
It's a good idea to adapt to the country to plan to visit or live. If you are unwilling, you should not go there and insist they adapt to you.
There's a big difference between a hijab and a burka. In fact there are several styles of female head covering. http://twentytwowords.com/not-all-headscarves-are-burkas-7-types-of-muslim-headwear-for-women/
The niqab and burka are the ones that many in non-muslim areas find objectionable.
Why can't Norwegians do x results in different answers than asking why can't Greece do x.
I am not sure the Arab Muslims have this same level of diversity within the(ir) label of Arab Muslim.
France has a long and sordid history of claiming to have invented freedom. It's Sovietesque.
The best cases always have unsympathetic "victims" (the saying in the US is, "heroes of the first amendment are always inconvenient"). The easy answer is, who cares? They treat people badly so we get to treat them badly. But this is not an area where we have anything to learn from the Muslim world. When deciding how I will treat a migrant worker, I do not care how Saudi Arabia treats migrant workers, even if the particular migrant worker I'm dealing with is Saudi.
I have a friend who works in the Middle East.
The nation he lives in has mild, but existent, restrictions on what foreigners can wear in public.
However, if he ever drives into adjacent Saudi Arabia, he and his wife both have to dress according to Saudi law.
Why not have European, or American, cultural rules about what kind of clothing is forbidden?
"Let us all act according to national customs.", as Charles Napier said.
"I want to say that the answer to that question is obvious: Because we have a strong belief in religious freedom and personal expression"
Is "do your own thing" considered to be the entirety of American culture in Althouseland? Nothing else?
Ann on going sans veil, "But I can't say "we," because I'm not French."
Immigrant Muslim woman on going sans veil, "But I can't say "oui," because I'm not French.
People should be allowed to wear their favorite Halloween costumes in public.
Do many people really have a problem with hair coverings, whether those are hijabs, bonnets, yarmulkes or turbans?
The real issue is the garments that cover the face.
Not only is it arguably demeaning to women to demand this, it is profoundly unsettling to be in a store or subway car, surrounded by people fully covered except for eyes behind a mesh.
If you don't believe me, try taking the subway through certain neighborhoods in Queens.
There is something about it that is viscerally frightening: black sheets draping ghostly figures, visibly invisible.
AA: I want to say that the answer to that question is obvious: Because we have a strong belief in religious freedom and personal expression.
Who's this "we" of which you speak, which has a "strong belief in religious freedom and personal expression"?
(Points for the "I can't say...because I'm not French", though.)
SJ: "'Let us all act according to national customs.', as Charles Napier said."
Well, that's the crux of the biscuit, ain't it? Western bien-pensants deny that we even have meaningful cultures and customs, beyond legal abstractions. (And by "we" I mean Western nations in general, not just Americans. Europeans are now getting shovelfuls of the same propaganda that Americans have been subjected to.)
Look around - many if not most of the posters here are convinced that American (or Western) culture consists of nothing but "freedom". They'll have you believe that the creepy feeling and distaste that normal Westerners feel on seeing burka'd or niqab'd women on the streets of their cities means that, by golly, they just don't understand what their own culture is really all about.
Of course this is nonsense - even our understanding of "freedom" comes from, and depends on, deeper cultural traditions. Of course, when you lose sight of that, you end up not understanding your own culture or anybody else's, and you piss it all away.
"The real issue is the garments that cover the face."
So, outlaw sunglasses.
Having lived in London, I have have developed a real dislike of the burkha. It is amazing how many women there are walking around in all black, with more or less only their eyes and nose showing. Talk about other-izing yourself!
The burkha-clad women were always afraid of my little dog, making a big show of keeping themselves and their children from close proximity on busy streets or in the park. Imagine if I had acted so disgusted by them!
I made many friends in my neighborhood by walking around and striking up (or responding to others striking up) conversation. But how do you begin a casual conversation with someone who sets herself apart so completely?
I'm not for laws against burkhas, but I am for strong societal pressure against them. Probably that pressure has to be put on the husbands, to allow his wife to interact with the society in which they've chosen to live.
The banks now have warning posters outside now that you are forbidden to wear sunglasses. hats or hoods inside the bank's lobby. Those must be Trigger-man Warnings for the bank tellers, and also help the cameras.
The French still have a country. The USA has been stolen and sold for parts under the reign of Obama I.
(Reposted after "the dog did my proofreading" original removed)
MadisonMan: It's foolish to apply Western Ideas to other countries.
So far, so good.
I'd rather cherish my freedom. Lead by example, and publicize.
Assuming (rather pompously, I'd say) that other people don't cherish their own customs, have no devotion to the particular ideals of freedom that you cherish, and aren't particularly interested in being led by you.
This misapprehension wouldn't be a problem for the West if it weren't coupled, insanely, with uncontrolled immigration and official policies of multiculturalism.
"The burkha-clad women were always afraid of my little dog, making a big show of keeping themselves and their children from close proximity on busy streets or in the park"
"There have been 17 deaths due to dog attacks in the UK since 2005. More than 200,000 people a year are estimated to be bitten by dogs in England, with the annual cost to the NHS of treating injuries about £3 million."
I'm more likely to see an Amish woman wearing a long dress with a bonnet covering her hair than a Muslim in a hijab. I have no desire to see either banned.
Covering your hair is one thing. The problem is when you have to cover your face. That seems like something society might reasonably find concerning in public places. I don't know if it needs to be banned, but I could see policies against it in some arenas...
"Tiny dogs major culprits behind record number of bites."
Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books about her odyssey from the Somalian desert to AEI and Harvard.
The Chinese government is ordering Muslim shops in China's western provinces to sell tobacco and alcohol. I was immediately shocked, but then thought, what better way to fight Wahhabism?
Not that a democratic government can do that, but the French understanding of "democracy" is nothing like the English-speaking peoples'.
He wouldn't be near them, though. And that's not why they did the big gasp, and hand grab, and dirty looks. They do it because dogs are halal.
Look, you can sit in Madison and ignore what is going on, or you can listen to what people who see the self-separation in action. It's up to you. That's what freedom is all about.
It is reasonable for a free society to impose constraints on people who despise and wish to overturn its freedoms.
Next step is to insist on a little reciprocity: you want to build a new mosque? Go ahead, just as soon as the next Christian church is built in Saudi Arabia.
There are different civilizations, and they do clash. So far the clash is a bit one-sided.
Does support for freedom of thought or belief imply support for freedom of behavior? Do we allow religious nudists?
Dogs are "unclean" according to the Wahhabists. It is about Islamism, not dogbites.
"Covering your hair is one thing. The problem is when you have to cover your face. That seems like something society might reasonably find concerning in public places. I don't know if it needs to be banned, but I could see policies against it in some arenas..."
Would you ban sunglasses? Would you ban wrapping a scarf over your face and nose?
We wonder why people in Europe are joining ISIS, and I say it's because their families are separating them from the society in which they live.
I mean, it's fun to be contrarian and talk about sunglasses and dog bites, but there is a real conversation to be had here. Not that there are easy answers. But societal pressure/persuasion has worked in lots of situations! (like gay marriage!)
"He wouldn't be near them, though. And that's not why they did the big gasp, and hand grab, and dirty looks. They do it because dogs are halal."
Why does a culture reject dogs? It's hard for dog-lovers to understand, but it is something that some people are part of. I think it's better to try to understand why people have different beliefs and to figure out how to live together. Wanting to steer clear of dogs is not dangerous or harmful. It's not like wanting to blow up buildings or things like that. If they were gasping, they probably really were afraid. Let's say the fear was only on the level of metaphysical beliefs and not actual concerns about bites and diseases. Why not be understanding about other people's religious feelings?
"There have been 17 deaths due to dog attacks in the UK since 2005. More than 200,000 people a year are estimated to be bitten by dogs in England, with the annual cost to the NHS of treating injuries about £3 million."
From that article, read while my eyes rolled: Home owners could potentially face prosecution if their dog scares a child who strays into their garden
So a kid trespasses into your yard, and is barked at by your dog -- and you are the one facing charges?
One of the best skills you can teach your kid is to read a dog.
"There have been 17 deaths due to dog attacks in the UK since 2005.
Holy shit, 17 deaths in 10 years within a nation of ~65 million? Ban Fido, save the people, (chant) human rights, not doggy bites!(end chant)
I wonder if anyone keeps track of the number of people struck by cars due to the limited visibility inside their personal, ah, religious garments? I know they used to track the number of tourists (mostly American) who were hit while looking the "wrong" way and crossing the street.
Ann Althosue said...Would you ban wrapping a scarf over your face and nose?
Funny that you should ask--my state (GA) has (or at any rate had as of 2010) a law prohibiting the wearing of a "mask, hood, or device which conceals the identity of the wearer."
Some left over law from a time people up to no good chose to wear masks and hoods, you know.
"Why does a culture reject dogs?"
Many immigrants are from countries that do not have wide spread vaccination of dogs against rabies. In those places a dog is like a snake. Its bite could kill you.
I think it's better to try to understand why people have different beliefs and to figure out how to live together....Why not be understanding about other people's religious feelings?
I am! I lived this, Althouse. I was perfectly understanding. The reason I brought it up was as just one tiny example of how people were coming into London and separating themselves from the Western Society they'd moved into. Nobody is making them love dogs. Nobody is making them touch dogs. Nobody is making them wear clothing that shows something other than just their eyes. But when they make a big show of rejecting the people around them, they are doing something they do not want done to them.
Or maybe they do. Maybe they are perfectly happy not interacting in any meaningful way with the people who are not of their faith and lifestyle. But again, that's a problem worth discussing. Especially w/r/t Europe, which is having a problem with young people who are growing up feeling isolated from their adopted home.
Society isn't a suicide pact.
Ann Althouse said...Why not be understanding about other people's religious feelings?
I got a chuckle out of that one, Prof, you're very pretty good at baiting your commenters and I'm sure we'll take it this time, too.
I can start, if it'll help.
The woman's reaction to your dog, MayBee, made the transition from thinking to speaking and doing, and that's a pretty damned important step. Although, you know, it's not like she gave your dog a treat one day and then the next day put up a sign expressing disapproval of canine perambulations, so you weren't really harmed. Anyway you need to be sensitive to her feelings when those feelings are religiously motivated, but you'd better not consider your own religious feelings as equally important--that would obviously be intolerant.
Why does a culture reject [gay marriage]? It's hard for [modern social liberals] to understand, but it is something that some people are part of. I think it's better to try to understand why people have different beliefs and to figure out how to live together. Wanting to steer clear of [supporting gay marriage] is not dangerous or harmful. It's not like wanting to blow up buildings [or attack gay people] or things like that. If they were gasping, they probably really were afraid. Let's say the [distaste] was only on the level of metaphysical beliefs and not actual concerns about [erosion of the sanctity of marriage, normalization of harmful behavior (or something)]. Why not be understanding about other people's religious feelings?
Unrelated quote, Jeff Cooper: Already a couple of the faithful have sent in checks for a foundation memorial to the innocents who perished at the hands of the ninja at Waco. ... I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as "ninja" … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.
Well, there's no conflict with a religion by "dressing up" although it may be uncmfortable, but there could be a conflict in "dressing down", especially if exposes skin.
"Why not be understanding about other people's religious feelings?"
A noble sentiment in general but, if "being understanding" means toleration of all "feelings," suicidal when it comes to Islam.
I understand that real Islamic teaching, not just "feelings," is fundamentally incompatible with my own values and with the premises on the basis of which a free secular society functions. I reject it and do not want it to influence the public sphere in the West.
I also understand that Muslims will not reciprocate "being understanding," and that wherever Muslims have significant influence or dominate a society, they will dictate terms. In Morocco and Indonesia, the terms may be decent; elsewhere, not so much. I would like more people to live more freely and therefore prefer, within reason, to limit Islamic rule to the extent possible.
I understand that religious feelings matter most to most Muslims. I hate to see them offended by our dogs. I would support modest subsidies that enable all Muslims to repatriate to dogless places that respect their feelings. (In the case of the Rotherham Muslims, only after they get out of prison. They hurt my feelings a little.)
MayBee: I'm not for laws against burkhas, but I am for strong societal pressure against them. Probably that pressure has to be put on the husbands, to allow his wife to interact with the society in which they've chosen to live.
MayBee, with all due respect to you as a consistently intelligent poster, but this is so full of earnest liberal moonshine, taken in context of the reality of modern London, that I hardly know where to start.
With something about horses and barn doors, I guess.
Who, exactly, is going to exert this "societal pressure"? The fact is that those burka'd ladies are surrounded by huge numbers of people in London, with more pouring in every day, who think that they are covered as women in public should be covered. From this point on, the only "societal pressure" that is going to be exerted is going to go the other way, in pressuring girls and women of the poorer classes (who can't afford a "white flight" ticket) to adopt non-Western dress. Any "societal pressure", however meek, that natives might wish to exert against burkas and veiling would probably result in their being hauled up on an "inciting racial hatred" charge.
Certainly no real pressure in the direction you favor is going to be exerted by the chattering classes, or the "leafy suburbs", who still live in comfortably Western areas. Count on them only for the sort of glib and childish responses that Althouse displays here.
AA: I think it's better to try to understand why people have different beliefs...
...just as long as we don't understand deeply enough to notice that some people's fundamental ideas about the proper ordering of society are incompatible with other people's fundamental ideas about the proper ordering of society.
...and to figure out how to live together.
Sometimes the best way to live together is to live apart.
Why not be understanding about other people's religious feelings?
Then we can proceed to persecutin' them for disrespectin' the rainbow flag.
Understanding for some, condemnation for others; sweet sweet moral superiority over all.
Non-muslim woman on the street witnessing a gay couple holding hands or kissing: Gasp! Universal reaction (among we enlightened moderns): How dare you, what an intolerant bigot, she's an asshole.
Muslim woman on the street witnessing MayBee walking a dog: Gasp!
Reaction: Oh, that's ok, it's her religion and her culture, we need to understand why she reacts that way and be sensitive to her feelings.
Tentative conclusion: some animals are more equal than others.
Why not be understanding about other people's religious feelings?
Seriously?!?
Why does the Left constantly demand that we appease Islam while they constantly attack Christianity?
"Are French Roman Catholic nuns also forbidden to wear a veil in public? "
nuns wear a habit of religious reasons. think of it as their uniform.
in parts of Europe where there is a Muslim majority non-Muslim women are forced to wear the hijab to stop harassment by Muslim men. Nuns voluntarily wear a habit which includes a veil, they are not forced to wear it.
unless you've actually encountered the niqab or hijab on a regular basis you have not idea how offensive it is to a Western mind. Muslim men see women as being temptresses, and forcing them to wear the hijab or niqab is done to keep the men from being tempted
I recently returned from a trip to the UK. in Birmingham and London especially the former one encountered the niqab just about everywhere, felt like I was in a Middle Eastern country not a Western European country
wearing the nigab or hijab is offensive to the mind and eye
Hoodlum- this isn't about *A* woman's reaction to my dog. This is about probably hundreds of women's reactions over a several year period.
Anglelyne- yeah, I see that. I brought it all up in response to Althouse's postings, and as an appeal to get her and people like her to see there is an issue, it's isn't just about happy thoughts of freedom. There is something to lose for people on both sides of this issue.
But she, instead of wanting to hear about what does happen, wants to tell *me* to be understanding of other people's religions. When I'm the one actually going out an interacting with people of different cultures and faiths in different countries, and she's the one staying in her comfort zone!
The only problem, professor, with you volunteering for the rape camps and the gunnysack wardrobe, is that all your men will have died first trying to protect you. Stupid, I know. Keep feeding that crocodile!
""I want to say that the answer to that question is obvious: Because we have a strong belief in religious freedom and personal expression"
Unless it might hurt the feelings of my son, then bakers and jewelers and pizza places who don't hold the "correct" viewpoint should be destroyed either through threats by the mob or by the government.
"Ugly."
1) The people killed in dog attacks are not killed by the little dogs. Little yappy dogs might bite you, but won't kill you.
2) Most of the "deaths by dog" in the UK are from large, vicious dogs kept by criminal gangs. They use them in lieu of firearms.
3) It's not normal to wear sunglasses inside a bank or on a subway. If you are wearing shades on the Subway, people will understandably look at you funny.
4) "Halal" means "ok to eat" - like Kosher. Dogs are definitely not that - I think that person meant "haram". though the usage may not be gramatically correct.
5) I may not agree with the French in all the particulars, but I admire their spine - they are saying "We have a culture - you are welcome to come and share it, but don't come over here and then jam your middle ages culture down our throats". There are plenty of places in the middle east where you can live in the middle ages - don't make Paris one of them. Similarly, why leave Mexico just to make SoCal look, smell and run just like Mexico? What's the point?
The dog rule is bullshit. Saudi Arabia had to ban them because Muslims were buying them. I read that a couple of years ago. They have spiders bigger than some dogs over there and no one will ever convince me camels are clean and nice. Dodnt anyone see that pic from either Afghanistan or Iraq of that camel spider?
After 2001, if u want me tolerant, you first.
Very funny, Madison, until you're not the majority.
I think it's better to try to understand why people have different beliefs and to figure out how to live together.
Ok...my ignorance is showing here...
How exactly do you live together with someone who holds different beliefs, and is unwilling to live together with you?
Or do you deny that Islam demands either conversion, death or slavery for non-believers?
holdfast- yes I'm sorry. I meant they are considered bad. I actually know Halal means ok to eat and I don't know why I said that just then.
MayBee said...I actually know Halal means ok to eat and I don't know why I said that just then.
Probably just hungry, MayBee--any Chinese restaurants around?
I think we should make Mars a kind of Coventry for "liberals" (by which I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators") and others who prefer the Command Society to the Free Society.* They could get out of our hair and get their sadomasochistic jollies on Mars. It would be like one big leather bar. Of course, given statism's history, they would all either kill each other or starve to death. Meanwhile those of us who prefer the Free Society could cultivate our own gardens back here on Earth.
*borrowing the terminology of the late, great Leonard Read.
@Ann, RE: Muslims and dogs
The descriptor "dog" is an insult in most of the Middle East.
Unlike dogs in European cultures, the dogs in towns in the Middle East are only quasi-domesticated. They play a the role of scavengers, not pets.
As @BobBoyd mentioned, rabies is also a possible danger for dogs of that type.
However, I seem to remember that Muslim culture has a rule that hunting dogs are not "unclean". I assume this means hounds (or possibly retrievers), and the assumption is that man who owns hunting dogs has the ability to control them and keep rabies at bay.
This is a cultural thing, not a legal thing.
No religious garb of Christians allows a person to hide their identity.
To answer Ann's repeated questions about banning face coverings. Can you wear a ski mask in a bank? What about men in masks hanging about at playgrounds? What about airport security checks? We already place restrictions on face coverings.
Your point about sunglasses has another problem: you are arguing for a religious exemption. That argument should be made granting ad arguendo that the restriction is otherwise reasonable.
PeterK asks a pertinent question. Is it not the case that coerced veiling happens and is a mechanism for suppressing women? It is the case. Are not women even in Paris cowed into veiling? We know there are, as some have told us so. So we should when it is otherwise feasible and convenient oppose it right? Arguing for a religious exemption is enabling an oppressive tactic.
"Why not be understanding about people's religious feelings?"
Didn't you just cheer the abolition of the death penalty and the extension of gay marriage?
Keep in mind that in the ten years it took dogs to kill 17 people, Muslim terrorists killed 56 people in one day. Plus others on other days. What's one of their goals? Force every woman to dress like that. What's another? To make a little spending money selling them into slavery on the side. But hey, it's those yippy little dogs that are the real threat.
You misunderstand their tradition. It is not "wearing hijab". It is "clothes should adhere to local customs". And wearing hijab is not customary in US. By forbidding to wear hijab, we in fact are paying respect to their tradition.
We also have an aversion to people hiding their faces in public.
We have an even stronger aversion to a culture that shames women that don't cover the face, and in some cases throws acid in those faces.
If men and women equally wore the veil, that would be a different matter. However, the veil is a mark of subjugation. We should have none of it.
Under Islamic law, dogs are listed in the "filth--najasa" category, right along with blood, pus, urine, poop, wine, and vomit. (See Reliance of the Traveler, e14.0). Muslims are allowed to keep some dogs, as long as they are "worthy" such as trained hunting dogs. It doesn't appear to make them clean, just worthy enough that if a Muslim has to choose between using scarce water to perform prayer ablutions or keep his trained hunting dog from dying of thirst, it's OK with Allah to save his dog. By the way, non-Muslims who disagree with the Shariah, Muslim apostates, and married adulterers do not fit this "worthy companion" category. (See Reliance of the Traveler, e12.8)
France has a very powerful religious tradition. And in the 19th century, France developed a powerful anti-religious tradition to counter it. We in the U.S. don't really understand the relationship between religion and politics in societies that had powerful established churches, such as France, Mexico, and Spain.
In 19th century France, it would be a career ender for a liberal politician if his daughter had a church wedding. In Mexico, the Cristero War of 1926-1929 (over the status of the Church) killed 80-90,000 people.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा