# Laïcité/secularism in France: beard and other religious symbols.



## linguist786

Amongst the religious symbols which are disallowed in schools and workplaces in France, how is the beard viewed?


----------



## Grop

Hello, most people in France who wear a beard do it for esthetic, non-religious reasons. Therefore a beard might go unnoticed.

However, if that beard was (for some reason) obviously a religious symbol, it could be viewed badly.

Note the law that bans religious symbols at schools doesn't apply at workplaces. Even at school it only applies to pupils (and probably to teachers), not to their parents.


----------



## linguist786

Say a man was keeping a full beard for religious reasons? Like a muslim keeps a beard because it is a sunnah.. How do you think that will be viewed? Just as bad as wearing a cross?


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Sorry for my ingnorance, but if I understand it means if I got ot he school I cannot carry a cross in my neck? or anything like that?


----------



## mirx

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Sorry for my ingnorance, but if I understand it means if I got ot he school I cannot carry a cross in my neck? or anything like that?



Yes, France has banned all exposure of religious symbols in shcools. And it is not something particularly new, it has been going on for a number of years now.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Weird, I agree the state must be secular, but what happened to the people's choice? 

Maybe it seems weird to me because here in Mexico, even we are not 100% catolici almost all religions are christins, but in France where more cultural mix exists, maybe it's better try to avoid any "misunderstandig" between people.


----------



## Grop

Well actually the original law was a ban on blatant religious signs. The idea was to not carry your religion like a political statement - at least not at school. What was "blatant" (the word was actually _ostentatoire_) was quite open to interpretation by school teachers and directors.

Today the law has been more accurate, so small things like medals are now clearly allowed - that would include a cross.

Linguist, I have limited experience of full beards, so you'd better wait for the opinions of some other foreros. I would think a beard is something common enough, but people in this country have mixed feelings about showing your religion openly.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Grop said:


> Today the law has been more accurate, so small things like medals are now clearly allowed - that would include a cross.
> I would think a beard is something common enough, but people in this country have mixed feelings about showing your religion openly.


 
To bring a small medal or croos that sounds more fair and less radical. About the beard I suppose linguist refrs to muslims appearance, but I also think (ebenthought I don't live in France) will be really hard to know ig that's a estetic berad or a religion beard, maybe with the clothes or more details you will know he is using it because his religion, but anyway I believe it would be realy extreme if authorities ask to shave the beard of someone!!!

and by the way If a muslim girl who usually cover their heads, go like this to school Is it forbidden?


----------



## Grop

Miguelillo 87 said:


> it would be realy extreme if authorities ask to shave the beard of someone!!!



This is not what could happen. They could only be refused access to some specific services (school). Also, some people could look down on them.



Miguelillo 87 said:


> and by the way If a muslim girl who usually cover their heads, go like this to school Is it forbidden?



Yes, and this is what caused these laws to exist, and what makes the whole story so complicated : because the question is mixed up with feminism (Muslim women covering their heads being viewed as a symbol of oppression of women by men) and with racism.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Grop said:


> This is not what could happen. They could only be refused access to some specific services (school). Also, some people could look down on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and this is what caused these laws to exist, and what makes the whole story so complicated : because the question is mixed up with feminism (Muslim women covering their heads being viewed as a symbol of oppression of women by men) and with racism.


 
I mean but in real life it will be harder to say if the beard of someone means to be religous or estetic right? 

And (only like I comment I try to understand the whole situation, I hope not to offense anyone) it isn't more racist not te leave person live ther costumes? I mean maybe some women are ok with veils and not let them enter to a school for that Wouldn't be worst? It shouldn't be everyone decision?


----------



## Grop

The thing about Muslim women (especially teenagers, as we are talking about school) is that it's hard to tell the ones who wear the veil due to personal convictions, from those who have to wear it due to peer/family pressure. But yes, such laws oppress the ones who truly want to wear a veil.

(This forum isn't about personal opinions, and my opinion isn't very clear on this).


----------



## linguist786

Grop said:


> This is not what could happen. They could only be refused access to some specific services (school). Also, some people could look down on them.


What do you mean by refused access?

I have a full beard, and yes it's because of my religion. 
I am going to work in France (in a school!) this year as a language assistant. To be honest, I am expecting being "looked down upon" or maybe the odd funny remark here and there. But I was just wondering whether it could get into a situation where the teachers may even ask me to take it off! Which I would never do by the way.


----------



## Mate

Moderator note: 

While I realize it is difficult with such a subject, please try to keep your contributions at least mainly cultural and not personal. 

Please also remember that this forum is not a place to advocate or promote personal viewpoints about the way things ought to be; its main goal is to help us learn how things are.

Thank you.


----------



## Larouge

This law in France has been voted to avoid discriminations.

Having this law or don't have it, it seems to me that it doesn't change nothing finally.


----------



## jmx

I don't think all these laws are about religion. In some other thread I said "Immigrants must adapt to their new countries, while settlers try to rebuild their old society in a new country". These laws are about sending a message to newcomers: "behave like an immigrant, not like a settler."


----------



## CapnPrep

In the discussions leading up to the passage of the 2004 law, it was suggested that, as a practical matter, the legislation could not be applied to beards. 





> On ne pourra jamais dire que se laisser pousser la barbe est un signe religieux ostentatoire. On va avoir du mal. … On ne va pas légiférer sur le port de la barbe ! Il faut rester dans le domaine du possible. (source)


In the end, the actual text of the law did not include even a partial list of prohibited symbols. As Grop mentioned, subsequent rulings by the Conseil d'État provide some specific examples, but as far as I can tell, the question of beards has not come up again.

All of this is irrelevant for linguist786, because this law only applies to students. But in fact, public employees are subject to even stronger restrictions, in the name of the _neutralité du service public_. And bearded employees do run into the kind of problems that linguist786 is asking about. Here is one example.


----------



## linguist786

CapnPrep said:


> In the discussions leading up to the passage of the 2004 law, it was suggested that, as a practical matter, the legislation could not be applied to beards. In the end, the actual text of the law did not include even a partial list of prohibited symbols. As Grop mentioned, subsequent rulings by the Conseil d'État provide some specific examples, but as far as I can tell, the question of beards has not come up again.
> 
> All of this is irrelevant for linguist786, because this law only applies to students. But in fact, public employees are subject to even stronger restrictions, in the name of the _neutralité du service public_. And bearded employees do run into the kind of problems that linguist786 is asking about. Here is one example.


Thanks for the great response! That was what I was looking for


----------



## Miguelillo 87

CapnPrep said:


> All of this is irrelevant for linguist786, because this law only applies to students. But in fact, public employees are subject to even stronger restrictions, in the name of the _neutralité du service public_. And bearded employees do run into the kind of problems that linguist786 is asking about. Here is one example.


 

But in this case it's explained that he was fired not just because the secular situation but also becuase he managed toxic products and he has to use a mask, which cannot be wear with a long beard. 


So here we have two situations which were against this man, so I supposed the punish was more impulsed for the toxic managment situation then the secular one. 


Besides he was only working for a public institution not in a educational one soif this beard is used for example for a teacher, How could you tell him he is not allowed to wear it? I mean, Can you prove he is using it for his religion? So it'll be easy to avoid beards for men in school. It's has been a case like that in France?


And another question Is this law only applied for pubilc scholls or for ALL kind of schools? I mean could it exist privete schools? For example here in Mexico there are some cathoilic schools, where priests and nuns give classes, Is that forbidden in France?


----------



## Mishe

Not only is beard more commonly an aesthetic feature than religious, also cross wearing is nowadays and especially since the 1980s been a thing of fashion. Many subcultures have embraced it - especially the punkers, metal and rock fashion lovers, and also hip hoppers. So even the cross is not always a sign of religious identity, it can simply be a fashion statement.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> Today the law has been more accurate, so small things like medals are now clearly allowed - that would include a cross



This makes it clear the law was just designed to target and harass Muslims.

The ironic thing is that Muslim women covering their hair is not even a religious symbol, it's just a normal everyday piece of clothing. A Muslim man must also cover his body to a certain extent as well, but we don't see them banning knee length shorts? Why not??

This issue is so riddled with misinformation, and unfortunately most Muslims have not been able to properly express the issues that exist. The Islamic injunctions for covering the body are purely related to public decency, and have absolutely nothing to do with religious symbolism. Any more than a Christian woman wearing a bra to cover her breasts is wearing a religious symbol, or a sign of her "submission to men".

This law is about as ridiculous as if a Christian teenager migrated to Papua New Guinea, and was forced to goto school topless because PNG women don't cover their breasts, and bras were viewed as a Christian religious symbol and a sign of their subservience to their men.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

I get to say I totally agree with Abu Rashid, Or Had been a case where a person who used christian "motives" were punished???? Maybe that will help us to clear the law is imparcial.

About Mishe comment, I also agree, here in Mexico the virgen Maria and Saint Judas are in vogue; I mean a lot of people wear rosarios, earrings, necklaces, even in the t-shorts about them, I mean yes they are catholic but To wear a rosario as a daily accesory? I mean this is only fashion not religion. 

Also tjere a re a lot of ancient Egypt images, as the Osiris cross (I think) that is in a lot of jewelry but it doesn't mean you believe in that.


----------



## Outlandish

Larouge said:


> This law in France has been voted to avoid discriminations.
> 
> Having this law or don't have it, it seems to me that it doesn't change nothing finally.


 

I agree with Abu Rashid that the target was to harass Musims, and I disagree with Larouge. The law doesn't aim at avoiding discrimination, it's all about promoting it. To force me to be secular is discrimination, it is either that I be secular or I will be draged out of the school. The move is a scar on the French liberty long thought to be its distinctive value. Now, liberty is abolished and they are segregating Muslims by forcing them to go to Islamic schools instead of public ones. What one wears in nobody's business as long as it doesn't offend anybody, this is one of the values of liberated societies but maybe not any more! 
In another point I disagree with Abu Rashid, Hijab and beard are religious obligations which the Muslim couldn't frego for the sake of some people's fanaticism for their beliefs (secularism). They are not like the cross and the Jewish cap a prefered act, but they are obligatory acts so we are facing a type of persecution in this case. The Muslim can't do without these and the French authorities are putting Muslim in the position to chose between satisfying seculars and stisfying God.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Outlandish said:


> The Muslim can't do without these and the French authorities are putting Muslim in the position to chose between satisfying seculars and stisfying God.


 
What Outandish is writing I get to say I totally agree, you cannot force people not to believe... I mean there's no liberty on that.

Mexico it's a secular state too, but here it's totally diferent, Professors cannot tell to stutent'0s what to believe, but student's have the choice to believe ans wear and do whateve they want, without damaging anyone. 

We called "Religion liberty" I mean France should do the same, one thing it's to wear (this is a personal choice) and other to teach. 

I think as everybody said this promote more the discrimination more than help it. 

For me to be secular will be, (using an example) Muslims women are allow to go to the school with or wothout the veil, and authorities should assure this women could do it without any problem, I mean if there will be a muslim teacher and He tild her to wear the veil ; Authorities should santione him.

I mean leave the people the descition to choose.


----------



## Outlandish

I only wish that other European countries do not follow the French example and that the French authorities fix what they have broken.


----------



## mirx

Outlandish said:


> I agree with Abu Rashid that the target was to harass Musims, and I disagree with Larouge. The law doesn't aim at avoiding discrimination, it's all about promoting it. To force me to be secular is discrimination, it is either that I be secular or I will be draged out of the school. The move is a scar on the French liberty long thought to be its distinctive value. Now, liberty is abolished and they are segregating Muslims by forcing them to go to Islamic schools instead of public ones. What one wears in nobody's business as long as it doesn't offend anybody, this is one of the values of liberated societies but maybe not any more!
> In another point I disagree with Abu Rashid, Hijab and beard are religious obligations which the Muslim couldn't frego for the sake of some people's fanaticism for their beliefs (secularism). They are not like the cross and the Jewish cap a prefered act, but they are obligatory acts so we are facing a type of persecution in this case. The Muslim can't do without these and the French authorities are putting Muslim in the position to chose between satisfying seculars and stisfying God.


 
Outlandish, Do you realize that western societies ought to be secular?, we had wars and bloodshed to get to this point, and governments should not favour any sides. If people religiousness prevent them from carrying out their civil duties to a given country, then those people must be disciplined.

Governements will usually seek the best they can to accommodate all religious practices, but when those religious practices go againts State policies and biliefs, then there is no doubt which one is the way to go. We are not going backwards and betray everything we fought for just so that a religious group feels comfortble.

You are absolutely right about your perceptions on liberty. It is people's own business to choose what to wear, unfortunately so many people do not get to wear what they want, but rather their partners, parents, or societies force this onto them; and even more unfortunate is that we cannot tell which ones are forced to wear religious symbols and which ones do it out of their own right and discretion. So, I am afraid I must say that French government have done the right thing.

Most States are secular and people working in their dependencies or insitutional bodies must adhere to the regulations established by those States.

I am from a country with no significant Muslim population, yet religion is to be kept out of schools. If people want to promote any religion, whichever this may be, then they need to open a private shcool.


----------



## Epilio

mirx said:


> Outlandish, Do you realize that western societies ought to be secular, we had wars and bloodshed to get to this point, and governments should not favour any sides. If people religiousness prevent them from carrying out their civil duties to a given country, then those people must be disciplined.



Yes, that's a good point. We've fought for a long time against the religion and its pernicious influx and fortunately we achieved to erase most of its power throughout centuries and through wars. We cannot tolerate that religion come back to the public space. It would be a backward step.

Religion must be a private issue.


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> Outlandish, Do you realize that western societies ought to be secular, we had wars and bloodshed to get to this point, and governments should not favour any sides. If people religiousness prevent them from carrying out their civil duties to a given country, then those people must be disciplined.
> 
> Governements will usually seek the best they can to accommodate all religious practices, but when those religious practices go againts State policies and biliefs, then there is no doubt which one is the way to go. We are not going backwards and betray everything we fought for just so that a religious group feels comfortble.
> 
> You are absolutely right about your perceptions on liberty. It is people's own business to choose what to wear, unfortunately so many people do not get to wear what they want, but rather their partner's, parents, or societies force this onto them; and even more unfortunate is that we cannot tell which ones are forced to wear religious symbols and who do it out of own right and discretion. So, I am afraid I must say that French government have done the righth thing.
> 
> Most States are secular and people working in their dependencies or insitutional bodies must adhere to the regulations established by those States.
> 
> I am from a country with no significant Muslim population, yet religion is to be kept out of schools. If people want to promote any religion, whichever this may be, then they need to open a private shcool.


 
I'm afraid that now gvernments are going the hard line by imposing political views on civilians, is that your concept of liberty?
Your assumption that western societies have to be secular is outragious. The seculars now want to decide for the religious , Muslims, Jews, Christians and supress them? If what you say is true, then Muslim soscieties have to be Muslim, so that the unveiled women must be forced to wear veil and laws force men to wear beards and the nonMulims get supressed and Chritians hide their crosses and wear veil and beards! I must attract your attention that according to this recipe, we'll definitely go backwards. And if you believe that possible for secularism, do not then blame radical Muslims in Mulim Countries.
Thus, the same terms you used entitle Mulims to use them, to make veil and beard and other Islamic princibles civil duties and state policies, those who refuse must be disciplined or else Muslim countrie will be going backwards! See, your personal convictions might lead you to be intolerant toward other peoples beliefs and relighious freedoms


I see too that you are very concerned with those who are forced to wear veil-who aren't many-, I hope you feel the same for those who are forced to take it off


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Epilio said:


> Religion must be a private issue.


 
Epilio and mirx, yes I agree with you in this point!!!

But maybe you haven't realized the "bother" point for muslims. 

Grop has said in his post, little medals, or chains with a little cross are allowed so, Why a small beard or a "little" veil wouldn't be allowed?  Now you see hte rascism!? 


I agree with you a secular state it's the best 'cause The Church (talking about the catholic one)  was totally iracional and its power was so much, that it was totally lost with greed and power, But one thing it's the power it has and other the peolple differences.

Here it's not being disccused if muslims teach religion or not; As you can see nobody it's complain it about it, Here the point it's the religion items, here it's said Muslims cannot wear a beard nor a veil, Is this real affecting the state???? 

In my country (please Mirx if I said something wrong deon't hesitate to do it) We are secula, right? But... December 12th (Virgen María day) A lot of works give the day free, including governament. Have you notice any of your professor with crosses and medals???? Yes, right!!!! And do you thing this is affecting secular state???? 

I mean here the point it's Why a personal thing should be avoid for the state??? 

Maybe here the point it's catholics we do not have so visual signs in our clothes; we only use medals or crosses and believe what? In France are allowed!!!!!! So doscrimination it's everywhere


----------



## Outlandish

Epilio said:


> Yes, that's a good point. We've fought for a long time against the religion and its pernicious influx and fortunately we achieved to erase most of its power throughout centuries and through wars. We cannot tolerate that religion come back to the public space. It would be a backward step.
> 
> Religion must be a private issue.


 

If a girl puts a piece of light cloth on her head, it is a private issue, Epilio

If you think religion is pernicious, you are free to abstain from it but you can never force others to do the same as you do; this will lead to a more pernicious inquisitions where some people want to decide for other people's beliefs.


----------



## mirx

Outlandish said:


> I see too that you are very concerned with those who are forced to wear veil-who aren't many-, I hope you feel the same for those who are forced to take it off


 
You got wrong most of my message. And yes, I do feel concerned for those people who are not let free to exprese their legitimate and unimposed religious practices, but like I also said before; it is impossible to know which ones are forced and which ones are not, and until we can tell, I applaud the French initiative and its restrictions.

I might have used the wrong wording, I did not mean that people have to be secular, but the governements do.


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> You got wrong most of my message. And yes, I do feel concerned for those people who are not let free to exprese their legitimate and unimposed religious practices, but like I also said before; it is impossible to know which ones are forced and which ones are not, and until we can tell, I applaud the French initiative and its restrictions.
> 
> I might have use the wrong wording, I did not mean that people have to be secular, but the governements do.


 

I assure you that I got you right 
Still you haven't told me your suggestion about what could be done to help those who are forced to take off hijab?
You say that governments have to be secular (like in France to a radical limit?), so also Muslim governments have to be Muslim (the way many radicals wish for?), and Muslims shouldn't hear western objections about it anymore. This is your opinion and I guess you should have used "I think that...", because other people think otherwise.
However, if countries should be secular, they should ban hijab in political posts but not banning little school children from recieving their civil rights of education.


----------



## Epilio

Outlandish said:


> If a girl puts a piece of light cloth on her head, it is a private issue, Epilio
> 
> If you think religion is pernicious, you are free to abstain from it but you can never force others to do the same as you do; this will lead to a more pernicious inquisitions where some people want to decide for other people's beliefs.



I agree with the separation of church and state. If a country legitimizes that separation, then, being coherent, none symbol or sign of religion will be tolerated into the public space. I mean, the separation must include everything, from the most insignificant symbol to the most relevant act.

So if a girl wants to cover her head for a religious motive, she shouldn't do it in a state area. Same rule should be applied to other religious symbols of other creeds.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

mirx said:


> ; it is impossible to know which ones are forced and which ones are not, and until we can tell, I applaud the French initiative and its restrictions.
> 
> I might have use the wrong wording, I did not mean that people have to be secular, but the governements do.


 
So you prefer they avoid instead of be free???  

I mean, How could we know if a man it's a rapist or not??? You lnow what Let's separete women for men in schools and works, I mean we dont0 know so it's better to do it this way.

Mirx I have to say you are so radical, All of us know Alcohol and cigarrate it's bad for our health, Muslims countires forbidden alcohol!!! And what happend al people said, Oh my God they don't let the people to decide. 

So let's do the same as alcoho it's workng fo our health let's say the gvernment forbidden,a d cigarrate and everythng we want to chose, 'cause we don't know what could happen????


----------



## Outlandish

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Mirx I have to say you are so radical, All of us know Alcohol and cigarrate it's bad for our health, Muslims countires forbidden alcohol!!! And what happend al people said, Oh my God they don't let the people to decide.


 It is a western illness judging with double standards


----------



## Outlandish

Epilio said:


> I agree with the separation of church and state. If a country legitimizes that separation, then, being coherent, none symbol or sign of religion will be tolerated into the public space. I mean, the separation must include everything, from the most insignificant symbol to the most relevant act.
> 
> So if a girl wants to cover her head for a religious motive, she shouldn't do it in a state area. Same rule should be applied to other religious symbols of other creeds.


 

And I agree with the separation of church and state, too 
Except that this seperation doesn't include preventing a Christian girl from wearing a cross at school, it's kind of insane

Ps
Note that a cross for a Christian girl is a voluntary religious symbol, whereas it is a religous duty for a Muslim girl to wear hijab


----------



## Epilio

Outlandish said:


> And I agree with the separation of church and state, too
> Except that this seperation doesn't include preventing a Christian girl from wearing a cross at school, *it's kind of insane*



Yes, it is.  It's not coherent. 



> Ps
> Note that a cross for a Christian girl is a voluntary religious symbol, whereas it is a religous duty for a Muslim girl to wear hijab


If it's a duty, we have a problem. And if there are more Muslim duties and if they contradict the Secular laws, we have more problems. Regarding that Europe is basically a secular place, I think there's a serious conflict.


----------



## mirx

Outlandish said:


> Still you haven't told me your suggestion about what could be done to help those who are forced to take off hijab?


 
I don't know, Outlandish. People should realize that if they are living in a secular state they should adhere to that State's rules. They could practice all the religions that they want, but please, for god's sake, keep it to their homes or places of cult.

We also must realize that we are not talking merely about a religious issue, but about a cultural one. 

Your suggestion that shcool girls be allowed to wear the hijab in schools would be the equivalent to church priests wearing a shirt supporting a political candidate during mass. This, of course, is forbidden too in my country.

Both, the priests and the pupils have the right to their political views and their religious beliefs respectively. But their position to the public and their interaction with the public represents a certain influence over others; which in neither case can be tolerated.



Miguelillo 87 said:


> I mean, How could we know if a man it's a rapist or not??? You lnow what Let's separete women for men in schools and works, I mean we dont0 know so it's better to do it this way.


 
Do you know why men and women are separated during peak hours in Mexico's metro system?

Well, the incidence of cases of young women being forced to wear Muslim dressing codes is also very high; and of course, that is only the tip of the iceberg, as they say. If the levels of rapes increased to a worrying figure, believe you me, governments would have to separate men and women or do god knows what.


----------



## Outlandish

Epilio said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> If it's a duty, we have a problem. And if there are more Muslim duties and if they contradict the Secular laws, we have more problems. Regarding that Europe is basically a secular place, I think there's a serious conflict.


 

I'm nt sure I understand this, do you believe that preventing a Christian from wearing a cross at school is insane and preventing a Muslim from hijab is sane?

Why do you have a problem if a Muslim girl wants to wear hijab? The real problem you do not see is intolerance, prejudice and fanaticism against Muslims.

If you think that Muslims and their clothes are a major problem and a danger to Europe, so Muslims in Egypt should have banned Christians from wearing their symbols and clothes for 14 centuries of tolerance; were Muslims wrong in doing so?


----------



## mirx

Outlandish said:


> It is a western illness judging with double standards


 
I haven't heard of any case were people are forced to either smoke or drink, at least fisrt-hand. Second-hand smokers have now their rights restored with the smoking bans around the globe.


----------



## Epilio

Outlandish said:


> I'm nt sure I understand this, do you believe that preventing a Christian from wearing a cross at school is insane and preventing a Muslim from hijab is sane?



Mea culpa 

What I meant is that it's insane to tolerate one symbol and forbid the other. To be coherent, the rule should be applied to everyone.

The rest of your comment derives from this first paragraph so I think I shouldn't bear it in mind. Anyway I clarify that my 'conflict' isn't against a particular religion.


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> I don't know, Outlandish. People should realize that if they are living in a secular state they should adhere to that State's rules. They could practice all the religions that they want, but please, for god's sake, keep it to their homes or places of cult.
> 
> We also must realize that we are not talking merely about a religious issue, but about a cultural one.
> 
> Your suggestion that shcool girls be allowed to wear the hijab in schools would be the equivalent to church priests wearing a shirt supporting a political candidate during mass. This, of course, is forbidden too in my country.
> 
> Both, the priests and the pupils have the right to their political views and thehir religious beliefs respectively. But their position to the public and their interaction with the public represents a certain influence over others; which in neither case can be tolerated.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why men and women are separated during peak hours in Mexico's metro system?
> 
> Well, the incidence of cases of young women being forced to wear Muslim dressing codes is also very high; and of course, that is only the tip of the iceberg, as they say. If the leves of rapes increased to a worrying figure, believe you me, governments would have to separate men and women or do god knows what.




If you think you should be free to practice secular ideas, be sure others are free to practice their whatever idea as well as long as their ideas do not damage you.
If you are fair enough you will realize by now after this long discussion that the real problem is some peoples inability to absorb others and tolerate them, this is the real danger. The example in red is no way reliable here. A Muslim girl and a Christian nun do not wear veil in order to win a contest, mainly political; they do it for God so do not mix. 
Does the last word in red mean that involuntary influence is intolerable and exacts hard line policies?


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> I haven't heard of any case were people are forced to either smoke or drink, at least fisrt-hand. Second-hand smokers have now their rights restored with the smoking bans around the globe.





The double standards I meant were criticizing some Muslim countries for taking healthy measures by preventing wine, for example. Westerners think this is wrong and wine is a personal freedom. If an unhealthy drink is a personal freedom, why hijab isn't?


----------



## mirx

Outlandish said:


> If you think you should be free to practice secular ideas, be sure others are free to practice their whatever idea as well as long as their ideas do not damage you.
> If you are fair enough you will realize by now after this long discussion that the real problem is some peoples inability to absorb others and tolerate them, this is the real danger. The example in red is no way reliable here. A Muslim girl and a Christian nun do not wear veil in order to win a contest, mainly political; they do it for God so do not mix.
> Does the last word in red mean that involuntary influence is intolerable and exacts hard line policies?


 
Outlandish, I didn't mean a political infleunce in both cases; but the potential influece of nuns, hijabs, or priest teaching on their pupils' religious development; and on the other side, of the political infleuence that priests, pastors, rabbies or the likes can have on their followers when displaying political bias.

One thing that I sense from your post is that you see secularism as opposed to Muslim, which is never the case. Secularism is to be deemed as neutral territory.

I do appreciate that the French policies might have everything to do with social issues rather than religious ones.


----------



## mirx

Outlandish said:


> The double standards I meant were criticizing some Muslim countries for taking healthy measures by preventing wine, for example. Westerners think this is wrong and wine is a personal freedom. If an unhealthy drink is a personal freedom, why hijab isn't?


 
You can't compare the two things.
Both religion and what to drink are personal choices. That is not on question.


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> Outlandish, I didn't mean a political infleunce in both cases; but the potential influece of nuns, hijabs, or priest teaching on their pupils religious development; and on the other side, of the political infleuence that priests, pastors, rabbies or the likes can have on their followers when displaying political bias.
> 
> One thing that I sense from your post is that you see secularism as opposed to Muslim, which is never the case. Secularism is to be deemed as neutral territory.
> 
> I do appreciate that the French policies might have everything to do with social issues rather than religious ones.





Mirx, I'm glad with this civilized discussion, and I do not oppose any political or religious system as long as it doesn't impose on others. Secularism is not neutral territory any more if it makes the lives of some citizens hard, harasses them and prevents citizens from free education because it doesn't like their teachings
Honestly, I didn't understand the pink part


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> You can't compare the two things.
> Both religion and what to drink are personal choices. That is not on question.




Religion and what to drink are personal choices but not clothes? Double double standards


----------



## mirx

The pink part referred to this:


Outlandish said:


> A Muslim girl and a Christian nun do not wear veil in order to win a contest, mainly political; they do it for God so do not mix.


 
A person wearing a Hijab in a public office is as unacctable, as is a priest displaying a political logo while celebrating religous ceremonies.






Outlandish said:


> Secularism is not neutral territory any more if it makes the lives of some citizens hard, harasses them and prevents citizens from free education because it doesn't like their teachings and .


 
See, the curious fact here is , in the case of my country, that its very foundations are based on "free, religiousless, obligatory education". If a newer wave of members of society comes along and jeopardizes these elements, of course there is going to be conflict. So what?, change your constitution right?, Well, no; not if a majority of the population still lives for and believes in those values.


----------



## mirx

Outlandish said:


> Religion and what to drink are personal choices but not clothes? Double double standards


 
Stop making it seem like you don't undertand. Clothes, drinks, religions are all personal choices and people can believe, drink, and wear what they want, but at their onw leisure and when these decisions don't go against government-stated regulations.


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> The pink part referred to this:
> 
> 
> A person wearing a Hijab in a public office is as unacctable, as is a priest displaying a political logo while celebrating religous ceremonies.
> 
> 
> Please Mirx don't mirx
> The priest or nun wearing a political sign is likely to affect the free choice of a voter and that is why it is dishonest. The Muslim wearing the hijab doesn't affect the integrity of any political elections.
> 
> 
> 
> See, the curious fact here is , in the case of my country, that is very foundations are based on "free, religiousless, obligatory education".If a newer wave of members of society comes along and jeopardizes these elements, of course there is going to be conflict. So what?, change your constitution right?, Well, no; not if a majority of the populations still lives and believes on those values.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that people in the west are punished for their nonconforming religions?
> The foundations of   "free, religiousless, obligatory education" of your country's education do not mean that the students have to be also irreligious.
> 
> 
> The French who convert to Islam aren't a newer group of members. The number of converts in France is immense, and the cause of the hijab problem in France was the two Jewish French convert sisters  Alma and Laila Levi.


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> Stop making it seem like you don't undertand. Clothes, drinks, religions are all personal choices and people can believe, drink, and wear what they want, but at their onw leisure and when these decisions don't go against government-stated regulations.




I'm not pretending to not understand; I understand fully. What is the use of believing, drinking, and wearing what I want at my home alone? It demands that the Muslim worships the French government in the first place then God in the second.


----------



## Juan Jacob Vilalta

Right: Mexican people is religious, 95 %.
No priest is allowed to walk in the streets with its religious clothes.
We even rarely hear church's bells ringing.
I agree 100 % with mirx.
Religion must stay a private matter.
Yesterday, a muslim woman in Spain refused to uncover her face in front of a judge.


----------



## mirx

> Originally Posted by mirx
> Please Mirx don't mirx
> The Muslim wearing the hijab doesn't affect the integrity of any political elections.
> 
> You still fail to see that nuns, priests, or people wearing Hijabs in schols can influence pupils -negatively or positively- on their religious choices. This, of course, is unacceptable in state dependencies
> 
> Does this mean that people in the west are punished for their nonconforming religions?
> The foundations of "free, religiousless, obligatory education" of your country's education do not mean that the students have to be also irreligious. They certainly mean that they cannot express their religiosity in public places, or better said, places that are State-controlled.
> 
> 
> The French who convert to Islam aren't a newer group of members. The number of converts in France is immense, and the cause of the hijab problem in France was the two Jewish French convert sisters Alma and Laila Levi.
> They are a new group indeed, whether they are ethnically French -_whatever this means_- is irrelevant





Outlandish said:


> I'm not pretending to not understand; I understand fully. What is the use of believing, drinking, and wearing what I want at my home alone? It demands that the Muslim worships the French government in the first place then God in the second.



Again, again, again, in the West we have been able to separate God from government matters strictly speaking. You may worship whoever you want but your believes must not contradict the principles of the government that houses you, and if they do, if they are indeed contradictory, then of course your religious beliefs come second to the interests of the State.


----------



## mirx

Juan Jacob Vilalta said:


> No priest is allowed to walk in the streets with its religious clothes.



Excellent example. In all the years that I lived in Mexico, *not once* did I see a priest with his cloth on on the street. It was always a mystery to me why on TV they always wore those long robes, yet in real life they looked like any one else.


----------



## Mahaodeh

mirx said:


> Secularism is to be deemed as neutral territory.


 
Why is it _to be deemed as_ neutral territory? It seems to me that this is yet another _forced_ belief here.

It seems to me that secularism, at least the version being discussed here, is as neutral as the Spanish inquisition! The main thing being said here is "conform, leave, or be an outcast" (in the inquisition case it was "conform, leave or die").

You seem to worry a lot about the girls that are forced to wear the veil; but what makes you think that this will help them take it off? What makes you think that whoever forced her to wear it in the first place will not just force her to leave school; in which case she started off with being forced to cover her hear, and ended up with still being forced to cover her hair, but also forced to abandon education!!

Wouldn't it be better to let her continue education, get a good job and knowledge in her rights and then, when she is strong enough to make her own decisions, she can take it off on her own. Even if she can go to Islamic schools (which are private, hence not everyone can afford for all his children), then she would be exposed ONLY to muslims and to an Islamic system rather than allowing her to be exposed to a full multitude of religions and non-religions (not excluding secularism) and letting her learn and make up her own mind just like everyone else.

Moreover, if she cannot wear the veil in public spaces, this means that she is being deprived of participating in public life regardless of whether she is forced to wear it or she wore it with her own will! Don't you think that this is a type of tyranny, a system that rejects 'the other' and demands complete homogeneity - diversity is not allowed, if you are not like us then you can't be one of us!!!

How is this neutral territory?


----------



## Mahaodeh

mirx said:


> Excellent example. In all the years that I lived in Mexico, *not once* did I see a priest with his cloth on on the street. It was always a mystery to me why on TV they always wore those long robes, yet in real life they looked like any one else.


 
I really don't understand why a priest can't wear his cloth on the street! What harm can it do?!! In most Arab countries (at least the one's I've lived in) the vast majority of the population is muslim, over 90%; and the official system follows Islam (well, to be frank not 100%, but they calim to) yet it's not unsual (and definitly not banned) to see a priest or a nun in his robes in the street or in the market shopping or going about his business just like everyone else. It never harmed the majority of a _different_ religion, how can it harm a population with the majoirty of the _same_ religion!


----------



## mirx

Mahaodeh said:


> It never harmed the majority of a _different_ religion, how can it harm a population with the majoirty of the _same_ religion!


 
This what you and others do not comprehend. In my country it harmed people so bad, that there were wars because of it, religions trying to imposed over one another and people getting killed in the process. One more thing why I don't believe we will understand each other is that you see secularism as another religion, when in fact is the non-existence of it.

About the girl and her forced Hijab, well, education is also mandatory so if her parents withdraw her from school the government must excercise all its capacity and make sure that she receives education, even if this means taking her away from the parents.

Yes, if the girl insists or is forced to wear a veil, then yes, by all means her public life must be limited to things that are not run by the government. The inquisition has nothing to do here, they were trying to impose a religion on people, and as you said, they killed people. Homogeneity and secularism seek to keep religiosity to a private matter, no one has died because of that as far as I know. And yet I am happy that you mentioned it (The Inquisition), as it is the vilest yet clearest example why religion (any) must stay -at all costs- separated from anything to the with government.

Religion stays out of public insitutions, period.


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> Again, again, again, in the West we have been able to separate God from government matters strictly speaking. You may worship whoever you want but your believes must not contradict the principles of the government that houses you, and if they do, if they are indeed contradictory, then of course your religious beliefs come second to the interests of the State.




Many countries in the past fell in this fatal mistake which has dire consequences, because when a group thinks that they are more important and are the decision owners to the extent that they marginalize equally important citizens and start a process of blocking their basic rights, it just creates schism in society. There are other societies which are able to tolerate others. The very people who were witness to persecution shouln't start to practice it.


----------



## Outlandish

mirx said:


> This what you and others do not comprehend. In my country it harmed people so bad, that there were wars because of it, religions trying to imposed over one another and people getting killed in the process. One more thing why I don't believe we will understand each other is that you see secularism as another religion, when in fact is the non-existence of it.
> 
> About the girl and her forced Hijab, well, education is also mandatory so if her parents withdraw her from school the government must excercise all its capacity and make sure that she receives education, even if this means taking her away from the parents.
> 
> Yes, if the girl insists or is forced to wear a veil, then yes, by all means her public life must be limited to things that are not run by the government. The inquisition has nothing to do here, they were trying to impose a religion on people, and as you said, they killed people. Homogeneity and secularism seek to keep religiosity to a private matter, no one has died because of that as far as I know. And yet I am happy that you mentioned it (The Inquisition), as it is the vilest yet clearest example why religion (any) must stay -at all costs- separated from anything to the with government.
> 
> Religion stays out of public insitutions, period.




I'm afraid, Mirx, this takes us to another completely different area, we are now talking about liberty and the hollow slogans raised by supposed liberated countries. But if you refer to the impact of religion which had been once in Europe, it had left a traumatic impact on people but that was mainly the Christian religion. I do not have something against the religion, but it actually has a long history in matters of persecution. On the other hand, Islam is not the kind of religion which punishes others for unbelief and there are no historic examples showing that Muslims prosecuted the nonconformists. Non Muslims have been living in my country for centuries now and in other countries and they can wear crosses at schools. In fact, in the same place, Spain, as Muslims first conquered it, they remained there for centuries but did not tend to massacre the Christians or force them to convert. By the time the Spanish were able to vanquish the Muslims, they forced them either to convert, leave or die, and they also prosecuted those of Spanish origin who converted to Islam and records say they were many; they even prsecuted those who thought differently than them. The tendency to try others for their beliefs is historically confined to only one religion. Moreover, I do not disagree with the Eurpeans who want to keep away the influence of religion over policy, but what has been done in French schools is not merely keeping away the influence of religion over politics, it is prosecution, separation and discrimination against people uninteresed in politics.


----------



## Montesacro

Outlandish said:


> (...) I do not disagree with the Eurpeans who want to keep away the influence of religion over policy, but what has been done in French schools is not merely keeping away the influence of religion over politics, it is prosecution, separation and discrimination against people uninteresed in politics.


 
Strong words indeed…






Why do people form communities?
How did the first states evolve?
Which are the advantages of living in an organised society with its laws and requirements?
Is there anything you have to give up in order to be part of it?
What happens if you don’t follow its rules?

Western philosophers have been debating about all this for more than two thousand years. 
The current organisation of European states clearly owes much to this age-long musing over the nature of social contract. 

Back to the topic:
to put it mildly, there’s absolutely no need to talk about intolerance or discrimination when addressing the veil /beard /whatever issue in France.


----------



## Outlandish

Montesacro said:


> Why do people form communities?
> How did the first states evolve?
> Which are the advantages of living in an organised society with its laws and requirements?
> Is there anything you have to give up in order to be part of it?
> What happens if you don’t follow its rules?
> 
> Western philosophers have been debating about all this for more than two thousand years.
> The current organisation of European states clearly owes much to this age-long musing over the nature of social contract.
> 
> Back to the topic:
> to put it mildly, there’s absolutely no need to talk about intolerance or discrimination when addressing the veil /beard /whatever issue in France.




So now , by this, Muslim countries can feel free to impose hijab and growing beards on all citizens whether Muslim or not.


----------



## Montesacro

Outlandish said:


> So now , by this, Muslim countries can feel free to impose hijab and growing beards on all citizens whether Muslim or not.


 
Basically yes, provided it is the general will of the governed.

Anyway it is a complicated and multifaceted issue, which shouldn't be oversimplified.

By the way, why are you talking about muslim countries? What have they got to do with France? Let's not enter into an us vs. them thing, please.


----------



## xmarabout

Montesacro said:


> Basically yes, provided it is the general will of the governed.
> 
> Anyway it is a complicated and multifaceted issue, which shouldn't be oversimplified.
> 
> By the way, why are you talking about muslim countries? What have they got to do with France? Let's not enter into an us vs. them thing, please.


I don't want to put oil on the fire but I think it is interesting to compare France (or Belgium or most of the European countries) with some "muslim" countries to show (and then to understand) that there is a fundamental, a basic difference:
- In most of the European countries, legally speaking, religion is part of the private sphere and the state is laic (religion is not managed by public bodies and cannot have a direct impact on the administration of the state)
- In some muslim countries, the state itself is ruled by the religion (the Chariah, if I am not wrong)
There is no judgement here, just a fact but something very important to understand why some "western" countries try to prohibit religious signs in the public area (maybe not the streets but the schools and the offices of the administration).


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Juan Jacob Vilalta said:


> Right: Mexican people is religious, 95 %.
> No priest is allowed to walk in the streets with its religious clothes.
> We even rarely hear church's bells ringing.
> I agree 100 % with mirx.
> Religion must stay a private matter.
> Yesterday, a muslim woman in Spain refused to uncover her face in front of a judge.


 
I have maby questions here, I know both live in diferent states but what are you writing I'm totally atonished.

I don't know maybe in my area, We are very catholics but... I live surronded 6 churches (1 for every neighborhood near of my house) and guess what every saturday I saw nuns and priests buying things in market or going out for their own bussines, in his religion clothes!!! Even I've seen some nouns renting movies in the Block....r and also I live very close of a Police department station and No police has stopped them for wear his religion clothes. 

Church's bell ringing??? I live in fornt of a church, All sundays it rings the bells every hour, the same in all churches, Maybe you don't hear it because you don't have churches near your house. 

About the ORIGINAL topic.

Yes you are right if the state allows or ban something you should follows this rules 'cause that allows you to live in a more paceful society, but I think what we are disccusing here if this law it's fair or unfair. 

Now maybe we are focusing a lot in Muslims, We have already state there are some incongurences 'cause you can wear a medal or a cross but no a hijab or a beard. RIGHT??? 

But Are there another "problems" with other religions? I mean budhists or other kind of religions?????

And only to clarify I also agree State musn't leave the Religion assume more power more than the religion, faith and espiritual thing. But that State pretends to homogonize all the world and not cope with differences that's why I disagree.

As Outlandish has said, if it'snt better to let this girl to educate and later to take her own desition. Ans aldo as MIRX also stated, if this girl doesn't want to use it but their parents forced to...well BRAVO the secular state, but you can't supposed everybody it's gulty until you prove it's not. It won't be better to claim you're innocent until you prove not.


----------



## Abu Rashid

mirx,



> A person wearing a Hijab in a public office is as unacctable, as is a priest displaying a political logo while celebrating religous ceremonies.



This stems from your misconception that Hijab is a "religious symbol", it clearly is not. There's no special symbolism at all attached to hijab, apart from in your mind, and that of some others, merely because it's different to what most women (today) wear in your country.

Muslim women covering their hair, and covering their arms, and covering their legs etc. is all the same, no article of clothing for a Muslim women has a special "religious significance".

If you believe this is the case still, then I'd ask you to answer my question regarding the analogy of a Christian woman living in Papua New Guinea who covers her breasts, when women in that society generally do not. Is her "breast covering" a religious symbol?? Is it a symbol of her oppression and subservience to her male relatives/husband?? Because it's _exactly_ the same situation.


----------



## Juan Jacob Vilalta

This is boring... back to the question.
Is beard allowed in France in public compounds?
Yes.
Go over there. No problem.
Ala akbar.


----------



## mirx

Abu, clothes per sé in, I think, most societies aren't direct symols of religiousness, but of course there is an indirect element attached to it.

Of course a hijab could be worn as a mere fashion, and someone wearing it is not necessarily Muslim, nor is a person wearing a white robe necessarily a doctor or a woman in miniskirt and highhels a whore.

About the women livign in that far away country. If they are tourists they can dress as they wish as long as they don't offend local customs. If people in Papua New Guinea feel disrespected, bothered or annoyed by people covering their breats, then Abu, by all means the western ladies must uncover themselves.


----------



## Abu Rashid

mirx,



> Abu, clothes per sé in, I think, most societies aren't direct symols of religiousness, but of course there is an indirect element attached to it.



Only in the perception of others. The Hijab issue in Islam is purely one of public decency. Islamic requirements exist for both men and women, that specify which parts of the body are suitable for public display, and which should only be shown in the home, or even only the bedroom etc. The piece of cloth which a Muslim women places over her hair has no more religious sentiment attached to it than the piece of cloth (socks) she wraps around her feet, or the pants a Muslim man wears on his legs and hips... This is my point. Nobody would mention banning socks or other feet coverings, since they are worn by people in most countries, but the covering of the hair is less common, and so it is being attacked, and this fabricated view that it's a "religious symbol" is being used as a justification.

This entire fiasco is nothing more than a cheap attempt to attack the moral fibre of Muslim communities, and to encourage Muslim women to wear less clothing.



> If they are tourists they can dress as they wish as long as they don't offend local customs. If people in Papua New Guinea feel disrespected, bothered or annoyed by people covering their breats, then Abu, by all means the western ladies must uncover themselves.



But it's nothing to do with "local customs", it's to do with public decency. And that only applies to wearing less, not more. Asking someone to expose a part of their body that they don't feel comfortable exposing, is wrong, and is completely contradictory to the freedoms and rights that Western societies claim to be flag-bearers for.

Now there is the issue of identity, for women who cover their face, but that is a different issue. Covering the hair is a personal choice of a lady (or man if he so chose), and I just can't see how it can be healthy for governments to start dictating to people what they must expose from their own private body.


----------



## Juan Nadie

> *Asking someone to expose a part of their body* that they don't feel comfortable exposing, *is wrong*, and is completely contradictory to the freedoms and rights that Western societies claim to be flag-bearers for.





> *Covering the hair is a personal choice* of a lady (or man if he so chose), and I just can't see how it can be healthy for governments to start dictating to people what they must expose from their own private body.


Why not covering the hair is wrong? Is it fair to cover but not to expose?


Anyway, there is an English sentence which says "When in Rome do as romans do", and it is not just in English were this is said.

Lets say that a lady from Papua New Guinea travels to an islamic country, and she does it with her breast exposed, would be she forced to cover? Against her personal choice? Against her possible religion? Hmmm....


----------



## Abu Rashid

> Why not covering the hair is wrong? Is it fair to cover but not to expose?



Because our bodies are our own, and we should never be forced by a government to expose them in public. I can't believe how illogical people are over this issue.

I cannot believe anyone would serious question the issue of whether a government should have a right to force people to expose themselves in public. I can understand you might not consider hair to be nakedness, but you need to understand for a lot of people, it is.



> Anyway, there is an English sentence which says "When in Rome do as romans do", and it is not just in English were this is said.



That's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. If the Romans are sacrificing virgins at the altar, should you also do that?? Sure there's some merit in blending in with local culture and traditions, but there's also limits. When it comes to nudity, then I personally think people have a right to enact their own limits.



> Lets say that a lady from Papua New Guinea travels to an islamic country, and she does it with her breast exposed, would be she forced to cover?



Covering does not infringe upon anyone's nakedness or personal comfort zone at all. That's why countries generally have indecent exposure laws, but not indecent covering laws. Well sane rational countries anyway, that aren't trying to intimidate and harass people of certain religions.

Enforcing someone to expose themself, and enforcing them to cover themself are two completely different things, you cannot equate them like that. All countries have indecent exposure laws, that's just the way humans work, not just Muslim countries, although in Muslim countries it might be more stringent than most others.

I have no problem with France forcing everyone to cover their genitals, that's a great law, but forcing them to uncover parts of their body is just not on, and completely contradicts everything they claim to stand for.


----------



## xmarabout

In Belgium, the law prohibit the burkah in public areas and it is more for a question of security than for anything else (anybody, even terrorists can be hidden behind a burkah). The hijab is not forbidden in the streets but there is now a debate about the hijab in schools. It is forbidden to have a hijab if you are working in a public organisation and you have contact with the citizens (question of laicity of the state - it is the same for other signs from other religions).
About the beard, everybody can have a beard, it is just a question of fashion. Today the fashion is no beard or a new one (one week) but nobody will be shocked to see somebody with a large beard and nobody will imagine that directly with a religious signification.


----------



## Juan Nadie

> Because our bodies are our own, and we should never be forced by a government to expose them in public. I can't believe how illogical people are over this issue.


My body is mine, ok, then you can't force me to cover it. I can't believe how illogical people are over this issue.



> I can understand you might not consider hair to be nakedness, but you need to understand for a lot of people, it is.


But just female hair and in the head. I will accept it, I will blend to that. If it were for both, men and women, it would be easier to understand. 
I will take this to go back to that beard (hair, by the way), I guess it is nakedness, so lets cover it. Or if it were a bearded lady she would have to cover it, but not when it is a bearded man? It is hair nakedness or it is not?



> That's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. If the Romans are sacrificing virgins at the altar, should you also do that?? Sure there's some merit in blending in with local culture and traditions, but there's also limits. When it comes to nudity, then I personally think people have a right to enact their own limits.
> Covering does not infringe upon anyone's nakedness or personal comfort zone at all.


WOW! From facial hair to clothes, and now to death. That is a little of a big step. I will play.
I would say that when it comes to covering, people have a right to put a limit. For example, I don't think that most of us would willingly accept to wear a full-body burka everyday, men and women. And it is covering, not nudity.



> That's why countries generally have indecent exposure laws, but not indecent covering laws. Well sane rational countries anyway, that aren't trying to intimidate and harass people of certain religions.


Maybe, in the religion of the PNG lady, to cover is to harass, that's why she is breast naked. I can accept that harassing could vary from culture to culture and as such, maybe to be dressed in a culture where everyone is naked, is to offend the rest of them (in some cultures, you have to take off your shoes when in a house, otherwise it would be offensive).



PS: I really appreciate your answer, it feels that good to listen another different opinion.


----------



## Outlandish

Montesacro said:


> *Basically yes, provided it is the general will of the governed.
> *
> Anyway it is a complicated and multifaceted issue, which shouldn't be oversimplified.
> 
> By the way, why are you talking about muslim countries? What have they got to do with France? Let's not enter into an us vs. them thing, please.


This is great news!
Please convince Europeans to stop criticizing Muslim countries which impose the law of the shariea on people, although I doubt they will. Yet, it is a this versus that issue, one can't just accept harsh criticism of somebody who is highly criticizable and thinks that he is free minded.


----------



## jinti

mirx said:


> You may worship whoever you want but your believes must not contradict the principles of the government that houses you, and if they do, if they are indeed contradictory, then of course your religious beliefs come second to the interests of the State.



It seems to me that this is the crux of the debate.

Where a choice must be made between living to please God and living to please the state, religious people are called to the former.  The state may feel threatened by not holding the ultimate loyalty of people who live there... or not.  Perhaps France does.

If someone considers religion superfluous or a once-a-week-for-an-hour sort of thing, then I can see expecting a clear separation between behavior/dress codes/etc. in and out of the public sphere.  But those whose religious beliefs are central to their lives don't just shut them off and disobey them whenever they leave the house/church/mosque/whatever.  And there we are back at whether the state has the right to demand ultimate loyalty.

Actually, what's interesting to me is that despite the uproar over Muslim practice, the hijab is basically just a modesty issue in Islam. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please.)  It's in _Christianity _that covering is explicitly connected with submission.


----------



## Abu Rashid

xmarabout,



> In Belgium, the law prohibit the burkah in public areas and it is more for a question of security than for anything else (anybody, even terrorists can be hidden behind a burkah


That's quite an understandable measure, and I personally do not oppose that.



> It is forbidden to have a hijab if you are working in a public organisation and you have contact with the citizens


That however I definitely oppose.



> question of laicity of the state - it is the same for other signs from other religions


Since hijab is not a sign of religion, the reasoning behind such a law becomes invalid, and in fact hints at a deeper agenda. The question is, what? What agenda will be served by promoting that Muslim women should uncover themselves? It seems to me that this is sending a message to Muslim women (or even Christian or Jewish women who cover their hair, there are some) that you must make a choice between success and advancement or covering your nakedness (your personal morality). And that is definitely not in the interests of secularism, in fact it's in direct contrast to them. And in the end it is penalising someone who doesn't happen to follow the majority religion, which is not very secular if you ask me.

Juan Nadie,



> My body is mine, ok, then you can't force me to cover it. I can't believe how illogical people are over this issue.


Exposing nakedness is a public decency issue, since it forces other people to see your nakedness. Covering nakedness is not.

Just to give you an analogy, if a state bans the consumption of certain substances it deems anti-social like alcohol or drugs or smoking, that's fine, since the state is protecting others directly affected by your actions. But if a state wanted to legislate that people _MUST_ drink or _MUST_ take a certain drug or _MUST_ smoke, then that is definitely wrong!!

Can you not see the difference? Prescribing that more be covered does not harm society, as neither does banning drugs/alcohol/smoking, but demanding more be uncovered does harm people, like demanding they take drugs/alcohol/smoke, since you're forcing them to do something regarding their body that they don't want to.

All states do legislate covering, some more than others, but until now, no state was insane and illogical enough to legislate exposing.... It's just ridiculous. Secularism has become a fundamentalist religion for such people, and has caused them to try to harass and intimidate competing religions, like Islam.



> But just female hair and in the head


Islamic public decency requirements are uneven, yes. Men and women have differing levels of covering. But then again, it's the same in almost every state on earth. In my city, Melbourne Australia, a man may walk down the street topless, a woman may not... And???



> I will accept it, I will blend to that. If it were for both, men and women, it would be easier to understand.


Nobody's asking you to do anything though. Nobody's saying you must cover your hair, just saying that you respect the rights of individuals to cover their hair, if they consider it part of their nakedness. Is that really such a bizarre and illogical thing? I don't know about the situation in Europe, but I grew up in a very secular society here in Australia, and we respect the rights of individuals to cover their bodies if they want to, since it's their own body. It's really as ludicrous as legislating all women must wear mini-skirts or all men must wear tight bathing costumes, since that's what "most" people wear. Although my roots are in Europe, I'm very glad my ancestors did not stay there, since it seems like the place has just gone mad.



> I will take this to go back to that beard (hair, by the way), I guess it is nakedness, so lets cover it. Or if it were a bearded lady she would have to cover it, but not when it is a bearded man? It is hair nakedness or it is not?


If a certain state decided to do that, I'd have no problem with it. Again, please seperate yourself from the emotional/ideological arguments here for a moement and look at it logically. Forcing covering infringes upon nobody's freedom, uncovering does.



> WOW! From facial hair to clothes, and now to death. That is a little of a big step. I will play


Since you made the simplistic argument of "When in Rome do as the Romans do" it was only fair and befitting of me to point out how incapable a simple idiom is of properly representing this situation.



> I would say that when it comes to covering, people have a right to put a limit. For example, I don't think that most of us would willingly accept to wear a full-body burka everyday, men and women. And it is covering, not nudity.


That's your own cultural perspective, since you come from a society (I assume) where the Burka is unheard of and is quite different from your public decency standards. But like with my PNG example, if a PNG lady travelled to a country which does not permit topless women in the streets, she'd probably find it quite restrictive.

Now let's look at what that analogy really holds for us. If the lady from PNG travels to Australia for instance, and she has to cover a lot more of her body to not break public decency laws, it's not that big a deal. Yet if an Australian woman, a devout Christian, travelled to PNG and was forced to expose her breasts, that would be a big deal for her...

It's really not that alien a concept... is it?



> in some cultures, you have to take off your shoes when in a house, otherwise it would be offensive


That's generally about cleanliness, not about "offending" people's culture, the analogy doesn't really hold.



> PS: I really appreciate your answer, it feels that good to listen another different opinion.


I'm glad we can discuss and see differing points of view. My main point though is just to dispel the myth that Hijab is a religious symbol of any kind, it is not. It is not a "uniform" like a priest wears, it is just a more stringent covering of nakedness, purely. Unfortunately most Muslims have been unable to properly express this fact and put the whole issue back into it's true perspective.

Jinti,



> Actually, what's interesting to me is that despite the uproar over Muslim practice, the hijab is basically just a modesty issue in Islam. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please.)


That's 100% correct. Hijab is not a uniform or a symbol or a sign of any kind (except to those who use it to single out muslims as an identifier). It is purely about covering what Muslims consider to be nakedness. A Muslim woman may wear any kind of cloth, hat, hood or whatever, that covers the area considered nakedness, there's absolutely no "symbolism" involved at all, anymore than a Christian woman covering her breasts is "symbolism".



> It's in _Christianity _that covering is explicitly connected with submission.


Correct, the Christian texts do link hair covering with submission to husbands. And perhaps that's why [formerly] Christian nations like France assume Islam must do the same, when it does not.


----------



## Juan Nadie

Abu Rashid said:


> That's your own cultural perspective, since you come from a society (I assume) where the Burka is unheard of and is quite different from your public decency standards. But like with my PNG example, if a PNG lady travelled to a country which does not permit topless women in the streets, she'd probably find it quite restrictive.
> 
> That's 100% correct. Hijab is not a uniform or a symbol or a sign of any kind (except to those who use it to single out muslims as an identifier). It is purely about covering what Muslims consider to be nakedness. A Muslim woman may wear any kind of cloth, hat, hood or whatever, that covers the area considered nakedness, there's absolutely no "symbolism" involved at all, anymore than a Christian woman covering her breasts is "symbolism".


As answers (inevitably) are getting longer each time, I will just make my final comment on this, for the sake of shortness.

Men and women have hair on the head, but if you talk about breast, it differs. They are not hidding something that men don't have, which happens with the breasts, but something that both share. Actually men can have their head hair as long, bright, clean... as women's hair. For men to have breasts like women would be far more difficult, I am afraid (or I am glad).

I am afraid that hijab is a religious symbol. If it is worn (traditionally) by muslims women, then it makes the difference. If in the rest of religions women were not covering their breasts and Christian women were covering them, it would be "symbolism", but as Muslim and Christian women do cover, then it is not one (other than to say that are not PNG religion followers, of course). Christians may wear a cross, that is "symbolism", because others don't wear it.


It has been really nice to read you. Cheers.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> As answers (inevitably) are getting longer each time, I will just make my final comment on this, for the sake of shortness.



Agreed it;s getting far too long. 



> Men and women have hair on the head, but if you talk about breast, it differs.



The different anatomy is also not a universal differentiator, since as the PNG example shows, some cultures don't consider breasts nakedness for women either. Nakedness is largely about personal/cultural perceptions, and if a certain culture/individual considers hair nakedness for women, but not for men, then that's their perogative, not yours.

Nakedness is a very personal and private aspect of human nature that cannot merely be reduced to a set of rules or principles based on whether you think others should feel naked or not. As I've stated time and time again, it's a person's own body, and for anyone else to tell them what to expose is not only wrong and interfering in their personal space, it's quite frankly perverse.



> I am afraid that hijab is a religious symbol.... ....Christians may wear a cross, that is "symbolism", because others don't wear it



No, a crucifix is symbolism because it's a decorative icon that's specifically designed to signify Christian belief. A Muslim woman covering her hair is nothing of the kind, it has no decorative/iconic value at all, and could be worn in any fashion/style etc. so long as it fulfills it's purpose of covering nakedness.

It has however become an identifier, but an unintentional one. Symbolism implies some sort of intent on the part of the one carrying the symbol to identify and cast themselves as belonging to that specific religion/belief.



> If in the rest of religions women were not covering their breasts and Christian women were covering them, it would be "symbolism"



I'm sorry but it appears we have very different understanding of what 'religious symbolism' entails. Symbolism (in my understanding) entails a deliberate intent of the symboliser to represent a message with a symbol. Merely having an identifying trait does not in itself constitute bearing a symbol. Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that Muslim women can be identified by their hair covering, therefore it must be a symbol. Such reasoning will be discovered to be flawed, the second one compares it with the definition of symbolism.


----------



## Jocaste

Abu Rashid said:


> This stems from your misconception that Hijab is a "religious symbol", it clearly is not. There's no special symbolism at all attached to hijab, apart from in your mind, and that of some others, merely because it's different to what most women (today) wear in your country.



Of course it's a religious symbol, its use is dictated by the religion is it not?
Under the tenents of Islam, are Muslim girls free to not wear a hijab when they venture outside of the home?
If so, then I agree, it's not a religious symbol. If not however, it most certainly is.



Abu Rashid said:


> If you believe this is the case still, then I'd ask you to answer my question regarding the analogy of a Christian woman living in Papua New Guinea who covers her breasts, when women in that society generally do not. Is her "breast covering" a religious symbol??



It depends. If the women is avowedly Christian and believes she is dressing according to the tenents of her religion then her clothing is clearly a religious symbol, I'm not sure how you could argue that it isn't.

In a country like Egypt, many Muslim girls wear the hijab because their religion dictates as such. Christian girls do not. I'm genuinely confused as to how you can then claim the hijab is _not_ a religious symbol.



Abu Rashid said:


> This entire fiasco is nothing more than a cheap attempt to attack the moral fibre of Muslim communities, and to encourage Muslim women to wear less clothing.



This implicitly indicates that Muslim communities as a whole somehow have "more morals" than the rest of us, a patently ridiculous assumption.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that France, or any other Western country, is attempting to "attack the moral fibre" of Muslims. What they are attempting to do is ensure the primacy of the state over religion (any religion), and, in my view, are justified in doing so. 



Abu Rashid said:


> I cannot believe anyone would serious question the issue of whether a government should have a right to force people to expose themselves in public. I can understand you might not consider hair to be nakedness, but you need to understand for a lot of people, it is.



Your use of loaded terms like "expose" only further muddies the debate. If a woman from Papua New Guinea goes to a Muslim country, she cannot dress as she normally would. Hence, when someone from a Muslim (or any other) country goes to Papua New Guinea, why should they _not_ be asked to adapt to how the locals do things?

You cannot have it one way in your own country, but then protest loudly when it's different in another.



Abu Rashid said:


> Covering does not infringe upon anyone's nakedness or personal comfort zone at all.



Of course it does. If I'm a woman from an African tribal society, then my personal comfort zone (and my "nakedness" as you put it) will be very much infringed by my not being allowed to dress as I normally would. Were I to go to Tehran, or Lahore, or Riyadh then I most surely would not be allowed to go topless. This is due to local custom. If I must adapt to theirs, then I cannot see why it's wrong to ask that they adapt to mine.



Abu Rashid said:


> I have no problem with France forcing everyone to cover their genitals, that's a great law, but forcing them to uncover parts of their body is just not on, and completely contradicts everything they claim to stand for.



Hence there is a double standard. I agree with those parts of the law which I like or which agree with my religious outlook, but not those parts which don't.
It's very simple really, if one comes to a society like France then one should integrate to the French way of doing things. If you cannot, then you're free to go somewhere where you feel more at home.

In France, the Burqa is not part of our culture, and something most here hold to be profoundly anti-woman. I'm sure you think differently. Were I in Afghanistan I would be raised with cultural norms which would cause me to think that the burqa is a normal way for women to dress, however I was not. Hence, if you come to France you should adapt to our ways, if you don't wish to, fine. But don't complain if you run into trouble because of it.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Jocaste said:


> Of course it's a religious symbol, its use is dictated by the religion is it not?
> Under the tenents of Islam, are Muslim girls free to not wear a hijab when they venture outside of the home?
> If so, then I agree, it's not a religious symbol. If not however, it most certainly is.


 
Well, despite of the fact I don't live in a muslim country, I have several (girl)friends live on them, My girlfriends in Egypt doesn't wear the hijab at all. (just for the record, Yes, they are muslim)


----------



## Orreaga

What I would ask Jocaste to explain is, how is France that much different culturally from other European countries (or the U.S.) which do not forbid girls to wear hijab in school?

I would counter to Abu Rashid also, that in the U.S., the hijab is definitely considered a religious symbol by a significant proportion of Muslims.  I've personally spoken to Muslim women, born in the U.S., who experience much inner turmoil and debate over whether to wear hijab or not (that is, when they did not regularly wear one as children, and now as adults are grappling with issues of identity and image), and it always boils down to a personal, religious/spiritual decision foremost, and then it also seems to make a statement that "I'm not part of that trashy side of American culture where women are made into sex objects for men".

I mean, I don't think it only has to do with modesty.  I don't believe that converts to Islam suddenly become modest when they convert, nor do young women who only covered their heads in the mosque as children and adolescents decide to wear a headscarf full-time as adults for reasons of modesty. It's more a statement of religious/group identity (speaking of Muslims born in the West).

For those who criticize "the West" (well, France at least) for policies restricting hijab, you also have the problem that Turkey and Tunisia do the same.


----------



## Lilla My

I may be the only one, but I still think that uncovering one's head in school (and other public places) is a matter of respect (of the teacher and the other pupils). Talking to somebody "hiding" behind a cap, a hat or a veil makes me feel uncomfortable. Were I a teacher, in the battlefield a class can become nowadays, I would not like this at all.

This is only "local custom", not religion, but it may have influence the law, don't you think ?


----------



## Orreaga

It may be uncomfortable for some, but accepted in the name of cultural/religious diversity and freedom in most countries.


----------



## xmarabout

it is really a question of culture, as Lilla My said, I was taught, when I was young, to uncover my head as a sign of respect against older people and inside a building (except buildings like metro or railway stations for example). I think it is part of my culture and, as well as I already put a kippa on my head when visiting a synagogue (I am not Jewish), I try to respect other traditions and culture when I encounter them. I hope for Muslims it is not a one way consideration...

In Belgium, we have for the moment the political debate about the Hijab and it is not yet finish...


----------



## Orreaga

xmarabout said:


> it is really a question of culture, as Lilla My said, I was taught, when I was young, to uncover my head as a sign of respect against older people and inside a building (except buildings like metro or railway stations for example). I think it is part of my culture and, as well as I already put a kippa on my head when visiting a synagogue (I am not Jewish), I try to respect other traditions and culture when I encounter them. I hope for Muslims it is not a one way consideration...


I know this is true for men in the West, that it is a sign of respect to remove a hat when indoors, or even outdoors during the playing of the national anthem for example, but it is also true for women?  In my country I can't think of a time when women are asked to uncover their heads as a sign of respect.  In a classroom, I think if the hat is distracting or blocks the sight of other students, a teacher may ask for it to be removed.  Do women in Europe show respect by removing hats or other head coverings as men do?


----------



## xmarabout

Orreaga said:


> In my country I can't think of a time when women are asked to uncover their heads as a sign of respect. In a classroom, I think if the hat is distracting or blocks the sight of other students, a teacher may ask for it to be removed. Do women in Europe show respect by removing hats or other head coverings as men do?


 
Yes, it is true: my grandmother wore an hat in the street and specialy when she went to the Church. Now, the hat is no more "fashion" (except for ceremonies - and the women keep their hat on their head, even in the Church, for ceremonies). 

But if you wear a hat because it is raining or because you are cold (it is winter here for the moment !), it will still be considered impolite or rude if you do not remove it inside (except if the heating is broken  ). My wife is a teacher and will never accept an hat inside the classroom (such a regulation exist in most of the schools for years with the problem today of some hijab in some area with more muslims - You have to know that the claim to wear the hijab in public area is quite a new process in western European countries and not coming from old muslims in the country for years but from the new generation of muslims, 3rd or 4th generation born in Belgium.)


----------



## Outlandish

xmarabout said:


> it is really a question of culture, as Lilla My said, I was taught, when I was young, to uncover my head as a sign of respect against older people and inside a building (except buildings like metro or railway stations for example). I think it is part of my culture and, as well as I already put a kippa on my head when visiting a synagogue (I am not Jewish), I try to respect other traditions and culture when I encounter them. I hope for Muslims it is not a one way consideration...
> 
> In Belgium, we have for the moment the political debate about the Hijab and it is not yet finish...





Muslims view the uncovering of the head as a sign of disrespect, especially Muslims of the past. St. Paul maintained that women should cover their heads inside of the church because it is more respectful before God, but not vice versa. This means that the Muslim practice originates from pure nature which was in man since he was created and was in all religious communities which evolved before Islam including Christians and Jews. I wonder if Mary the mother of Jesus were to live with us now, would you inform her that her access is denied in most of Europe's national facilities because she, like the imigrants and residents, has to adopt herself to the culture of the places she visits? Imposing one's norms and behaviors on others -especially if they damage their beliefs- is a bad omen, particularly when done in the time and place where the most extreme behaviors are considered personal freedoms which must be respected. It is just another product of the bias against Muslims in particular. Secularism is just a pretext.


----------



## Orreaga

Outlandish said:


> Muslims view the uncovering of the head as a sign of disrespect, especially Muslims of the past. St. Paul maintained that women should cover their heads inside of the church because it is more respectful before God, but not vice versa. This means that the Muslim practice originates from pure nature which was in man since he was created and was in all religious communities which evolved before Islam including Christians and Jews. I wonder if Mary the mother of Jesus were to live with us now, would you inform her that her access is denied in most of Europe's national facilities because she, like the imigrants and residents, has to adopt herself to the culture of the places she visits? Imposing one's norms and behaviors on others -especially if they damage their beliefs- is a bad omen, particularly when done in the time and place where the most extreme behaviors are considered personal freedoms which must be respected. It is just another product of the bias against Muslims in particular. Secularism is just a pretext.


But women in the Muslim countries of Turkey and Tunisia are also subject to laws similar to French laws.  Why single out France (or Europe) when restrictions are also in place in Muslim countries?


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Orreaga said:


> But women in the Muslim countries of Turkey and Tunisia are also subject to laws similar to French laws. Why single out France (or Europe) when restrictions are also in place in Muslim countries?


 
Turkey it's not a muslim country, it's a secular State.


----------



## Orreaga

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Turkey it's not a muslim country, it's a secular State.


But 98% of the population of Turkey is Muslim.  Only 4% of France is Muslim.  Why is it unacceptable for France to place restrictions on the wearing of head-coverings when Turkey does the same?


----------



## Outlandish

It's true that some Muslim states confiscate the reigious freedoms of their citizens but we do not want to mention them. They are independent states nonetheless they can't think for themselves independently. When you want to dissect a phenomenon you start with the head not the tail. It is not hard to find out how many countries in the world are hard on the heels of the European or American model even that their attempts to mimic the western systems are void of sense.


----------



## Orreaga

The "American model", of course, does not include restrictions on headscarves for Muslim women. I work at a public university and see Muslim students and employees every day wearing hijab. Most of them are Americans.  I am proud that we have these freedoms. 

But I will defer to the Turks and Tunisians to defend whether or not they can "think for themselves independently."


----------



## Montesacro

Outlandish said:


> This means that the Muslim practice originates from pure nature which was in man since he was created and was in all religious communities which evolved before Islam including Christians and Jews.



"Pure nature"? 
"Since man was created"? 

Remember not to confuse your personal beliefs with objective truths.



Orreaga said:


> But I will defer to the Turks and Tunisians to defend whether or not they can "think for themselves independently."



Well put.
I'm fairly sure they can.


----------



## Dr Z

Montesacro said:


> "
> 
> 
> 
> Well put.
> I'm fairly sure they can.



Turks, can as Turkey is quite democratic, I have my doubt in Tunisia, but definitively more than KSA.


----------



## Outlandish

> "Pure nature"?
> "Since man was created"?
> 
> Remember not to confuse your personal beliefs with objective truths.


I'm sure that historical examples will support this. Women in Christianity and Judaism had to cover their heads. There are many traditions which prove this. Women in the west did not know the 'liberty' they are experiencing right now from so long. I saw pictures of Italian women from the 60's wearing long black head covers reaching down to their legs. If no one elaborated that they are Italian, I would have thought that those pictures are for women from Baghdad or Saudi Arabia. 




> Turks, can as Turkey is quite democratic, I have my doubt in Tunisia,  but definitively more than KSA.


Still cannot know how the westerner believes that forcing women to wear head cover is undemocratic, but forcing them to take it off is pretty democratic!


----------



## Dr Z

basically, nearly all of the organized religions in the world are against democracy. Civic and democratic values should be put over religious matters, thats what secularism is about.


----------



## Outlandish

Dr Z said:


> basically, nearly all of the organized religions in the world are against democracy. Civic and democratic values should be put over religious matters, thats what secularism is about.




This's quite undemocratic. If you think people should accept your secularism you should accept their religiousness. Accepting only yourself is an undemocratic thought. The ability to accept the other and live with him in peace is the right thing to do, but those who want to impose their brains on others are the most dangerous undemocratic ones.


----------



## Dr Z

In many countries the public exhibition of Nazi symbology is illegal, its the same thing some general concepts are over the so called "individual freedoms"


----------



## Outlandish

Dr Z said:


> In many countries the public exhibition of Nazi symbology is illegal, its the same thing some general concepts are over the so called "individual freedoms"



This is so radical! You are simply evening religions with horrible systems like the Nazis, to the extent that personal freedom should be marginalized when it comes to banning religion. You are free to think what you want, but if there are many others thinking in your way, it is then a very dangerous sign.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Dr Z said:


> basically, nearly all of the organized religions in the world are against democracy. Civic and democratic values should be put over religious matters, thats what secularism is about.


 

In Mexico (a secular state) we have in our constitution the law about, Freedom of religion.

So you can profess any religion you want freely?

For example I think Jehova's witnesses, can't pledge allegiance to the mexican or any flag, and we respect it, We don't force them to pledge allegiance, the same if a woman it's cover form head to foot, if it's her choice, go on.

If she wants to leave wearing the hijab, so go on, that's what democratic sholuld be. Be there for protect the individualism of each person


----------



## mirx

Miguelillo 87 said:


> For example I think Jehova's witnesses, can't pledge allegiance to the mexican or any flag, and we respect it, We don't force them to pledge allegiance, the same if a woman it's cover form head to foot, if it's her choice, go on.


 
Maybe in your city. When I was in secondary school there were a few kids from their religion, they refused to pay any kind of respect to the flag, civic parades or the national anthem. They were seen every Monday cleaning the sports courts, patios, and corridors of the school as punishment for their disobedience.

I honestly felt quite sorry for them, it should be their parents doing the cleaning instead but rules are rules.


----------



## phosphore

Miguelillo 87 said:


> In Mexico (a secular state) we have in our constitution the law about, Freedom of religion.
> 
> So you can profess any religion you want freely?
> 
> For example I think Jehova's witnesses, can't pledge allegiance to the mexican or any flag, and we respect it, We don't force them to pledge allegiance, the same if a woman it's cover form head to foot, if it's her choice, go on.
> 
> If she wants to leave wearing the hijab, so go on, that's what democratic sholuld be. Be there for protect the individualism of each person


 
I am sorry, why are you so hung up on this subject?

I understand this is a contest in formal logic, since those who are not trying to or don't want to understand the actual problems in France because of which the law in question has been enacted are using dubious logical arguments to prove their point, so I have a little question. My personal belief is that people should go around all naked. In a democratic society I can believe what I want all I want and I have a few followers. BUT we have been banned not only from schools and all other public institutions, we have been banned even from the streets. How do you feel about my beliefs being sanctioned and I am reminding you that we live in a democratic society?


----------



## Miguelillo 87

phosphore said:


> How do you feel about my beliefs being sanctioned and I am reminding you that we live in a democratic society?


 
The same as I feel for cannot be married to a person I love and not to have the same rights than a straight couple who marry.

But I believe in institutions and that they will find (as they are doing it) to make all the society live in a very good way of living.

"El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz" The respect for the others' rights it's a peaceful way of living" 

So untill your right doesn't afect me in a real way. 

For example, is it really harmful for others that a woman uses hijab?

*mirx*, Yeah, Maybe as I live in a big city, the things are different, at least in my school people could not may respect to the flag, if it's mandatory of his/her religion


----------



## phosphore

Dear Miguelillo, you may or may not know that this world is not really the way we want it or the way it should be. Anyway, even in a purely logical system with more than one principle governing it when these principles get in conflict you have to decide which one of them is more important. For example, the freedom of speech and the prohibition of hate speech. Hate speech is a kind of speech, nevertheless it is prohibited in many societies where the freedom of speech is taken as one of the very basic rights and values. You may say that when I use the so-called hate speech I express my thoughts and feelings and no one has the right to stop me in that. You may say that the definition of hate speech is dubious. You may provide some other argument. The truth is that the hate speech has been prohibited for a reason, even though one might fail to provide a formal justification for it. I am really and I mean really sorry that you can't marry the person you want and I hope that would change soon, but (there's always a "but") that has nothing to do with the problems France (and eventually Europe) is facing and is trying to solve. I really don't think this is your battle, this is a question of people who want to express publicly and eventually agressively the way they think and feel and they are angry because they have been deprived of the right to do that even in schools. It is cynical to say that someone's faith is hurt by that. If it is really that important for one's faith to shove it in everyone's face all the time and it doesn't suffice that he can do it everywhere but in schools, he needs to do it in schools too, then we should really discuss what he believes in.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

You are right phosphore, maybe I don't get the all picture od the troubles in Europe, but I think to respect other believes people it's to be a universal right.

As I've stated before, I think religion should not be in the education, or public services provided by the governament, on the other hand, people just trying to follow what his/her religion says. (as far as this don't harm otheres) it has to be a right. 

I mean a muslim teacher should not teach nothing about his religion to their students, the same a christian or budist one. But if this teacher wantd to have bear or use a cross, in his body ¿What's the problem? Maybe this is the point I'm missing


----------

