Should France ban the veil? [OFFTOPIC]

[Glockmeister]

By completely disregarding France's history and culture, are you not doing the exact thing you are protesting against? You're imposing your own values of what "ought" to be done upon them. Why are your values more right than theirs?

Don't do a strawman on me, Ninwa.

I'm cautioning against the tendency for people to assume that just because something is the case, it doesn't mean that we ought to follow it. These values need (and dare I say it ought), to be argued out. It's dangerous to assume the default position is the right position.

[Cthulhu]

France  has already banned things like the burqa and crucifixes in public schools back in 2004.

If the burqa truly is a cultural thing from over 1500 years ago. It most likely comes from a man dominated 'women are lesser' society. Things like that no longer have a place in a modern society where everyone is considered equal. I don't see any reason why the burqa shouldn't be banned but let the head scarfs stay. This oppression nonsense is rubbish it is estimated that 2000 women in France wear the burqa 2000 out of a population of 3.7million "possible muslims" in France. Obviously a lot more women would be wearing it if it was oppression from the husband/religion/culture yet these women either do it by choice or their husbands really are oppressing them.
If they are not being forced to wear the burqa why can't they wear just a normal headscarf and if they are being forced to wear it then this would surely give them some freedom from what surely is an abusive marriage(abusive in the 'you're lesser than me!' way not in the physical abusive way)

Thats just what I think at 2am.

I can throw the same argument back though. Why do you wear pants? Why don't you choose to wear shorts instead? Or a dress? Shouldn't these things be matters of your own person volition, rather than something that the State decides.

I wear pants because my legs look terrible in shorts. Duh. But seriously I wear pants because its a socially acceptable thing to do. If I walked around uni wearing nothing but my underwear I'd probably get strange comments shouted at me and be considered 'strange'. Now there are no laws saying I -cant- wear underwear and no pants but I wear pants because its socially acceptable in Australia.

In France it appears that the burqa is not socially acceptable and most French people see it as 'unFrench'. Now I know there is not much comparison but in Germany it is illegal/looked down upon to own stuff relating to the Third Reich. Now if I believed in the ideals of Hitler I would feel oppressed in Germany because I couldn't walk around because I'd be arrested/fined/thrown in jail.

Is having the same ideals as Hitler 'unGerman'? Yes and I realise the burqa thing is completely unrelated to violence and Germany doesn't want reminders of that terrible period. But much like the nazi stuff in Germany the burqa is socially unacceptable and seen as an item not really needed in French culture. The women born in France are not from a muslim culture their ancestry is but they are born into the French culture which is a secular culture where faceveils are looked down upon.

In the UAE it is illegal to have alcohol. Wine is a stereotypical French cultural thing. If a Frenchman goes to the UAE won't he feel oppressed because he isn't allowed to be part of his own culture? I know it's tit-for-tat but try to think that the banning of things related to someone's culture/belief isn't as uncommon as it seems and this burqa thing has been blown out of proportion.

Oh well. Time to go to class.

[ninwa]

But more importantly, I find it disturbing that people in this thread think that Islam is inherently oppressive. Religion is abstract and should be separated from the practitioners of the religion who can decide what they want to follow and what they don't. In the case of Islam, there is little evidence to support that it inherently oppresses women, although governments of Islamic states certainly do. There is nothing wrong with Islam, but there is something wrong in using religion to justify or explain awful behaviour.

I'm not sure where anyone suggested Islam itself is oppressive. It is the practices (such as the wearing of a burqa) which are justified using Islam that can be oppressive (obviously with exceptions where women have made a conscious and informed choice to wear coverings). If you're talking about the discussion over whether Islam/all religions cause killings, that's a different matter to oppression.

Just because you live in France, doesn't mean you should act in a way that others think of as 'French'. You still have that personal autonomy (isn't that what liberte is all about?). I know it's not exactly the same, but if the French banned wearing a crucifix that other could see, would that be okay? If all religion is truly 'unFrench', then shouldn't all faith emblems be banned in public?

Of course it doesn't mean you have to act French. I made that post to emphasise the fact that it's not, as Yitzi_K suggested, merely a case of "we don't like burqas" or "we think it oppresses women", but rather the deeper issue of the role of secularism in the French national identity.

The French have actually already banned in 2004 the wearing of conspicuous religious emblems in public schools and in public service (kippot, veils, large crosses etc. However, discreet items are okay - you can wear a small cross, the star of David or mini-Qurans, for example).

So yes, religion is "unFrench", and all conspicuous faith emblems have already been banned in public service/schools. They're not just targeting Islam.

[ninwa]

By completely disregarding France's history and culture, are you not doing the exact thing you are protesting against? You're imposing your own values of what "ought" to be done upon them. Why are your values more right than theirs?

Don't do a strawman on me, Ninwa.

I'm cautioning against the tendency for people to assume that just because something is the case, it doesn't mean that we ought to follow it. These values need (and dare I say it ought), to be argued out. It's dangerous to assume the default position is the right position.

Please read my arguments again.
Nobody is arguing that we ought to follow it. Where did anyone say Australia should ban the wearing of the burqa in public? This is France we're talking about. And I never even said the French position is the right position; I was merely explaining (as I mentioned above) that it is not merely an issue of "we dislike Islam/burqas/oppression of women".

For the record, again, I believe that the burqa can be a symbol of oppression but I don't believe France is doing the right thing. That doesn't mean France is definitely wrong or should not do it (that would be imposing my values upon them), it just means there might possibly be better ways of going about this.

[Yitzi_K]

Do you stone people for not observing the sabbath?

No, but as I said above, it's not because of any moral problem against it. The law that says that people who break the Sabbath are to be stoned is still 100% in effect. The reason it's not used is because there is no Sanhedrin, so no one in this time has the power to impose a death penalty. Once the Sanhedrin is re-established, the death penalty will come back into practice.

And if Judaism doesn't change, then how do you explain the various sects that branch off?

Charedi, Hasidic, Sephardi, Ashkenazi, Lubavitcher, Orthodox, Modern Orthodox etc.

If there is nothing different about these sects then WHY do they exist?

Not to mention that the Yemeni Jewish practices have diverged greatly from that which you know. Of course, it's often more convenient for the orthodox to simply pretend they don't exist...

You named seven 'sects' up there, which in reality are only 2. It's quite possible (indeed I know many people who fit this description) for one person to be Charedi, Hasidic, Ashkenazi, Lubavitch and Orthodox. The only ones of those 'sects' which are mutually exclusive are Modern Orthodox - Charedi and Ashkenazi-Sephardi.

The difference between modern orthodox and charedi is simply a matter of stringency. The laws are the same, it's just charedim are far more stringent in their application of the laws.

The difference between Sephardim and Ashkenazim is geographical. Again, the laws are exactly the same. There are very slight differences in prayer texts, a number of differences in non-mandatory customs and some differences over stringencies (Sephardim tend to be more stringent) but in reality there is no actual difference in belief or application.

I could go into much more detail about all of those sects you mentioned, and demonstrate exactly how someone can be a member of 5 of them, but it would get us very off-topic so I won't.

Yemenites are a different story altogether. They were cut off from the rest of the Jewish world for so long that many of their practices did change, that's true. (Amazingly though, many stayed the same despite the vast time they were secluded.) Now that they are being re-integrated into the general Jewish community, things are changing back. Although it is far more complicated than that, again, off-topic.

[Cthulhu]

Do you stone people for not observing the sabbath?

No, but as I said above, it's not because of any moral problem against it. The law that says that people who break the Sabbath are to be stoned is still 100% in effect. The reason it's not used is because there is no Sanhedrin, so no one in this time has the power to impose a death penalty. Once the Sanhedrin is re-established, the death penalty will come back into practice.

And therein lies the problem with religion. Don't believe what I believe? I'm going to kill you! and they say us atheists have no morals or ethics at least we don't kill people for having different opinions To bad for all the christians/non-religious people in Israel then. I'm sure Israel would be violating multiple things on the decleration of human rights if the Sahedrin is re-established.

[TrueLight]

wth thats not what religion preaches. its doesn't preach death... unless its some distorted view of religion 

[Cthulhu]

Sure it doesnt

[TrueLight]

i don't know if that is actually accurate but yeah its not preached to die if you do work on sunday or wateva day

[Yitzi_K]

Do you stone people for not observing the sabbath?

No, but as I said above, it's not because of any moral problem against it. The law that says that people who break the Sabbath are to be stoned is still 100% in effect. The reason it's not used is because there is no Sanhedrin, so no one in this time has the power to impose a death penalty. Once the Sanhedrin is re-established, the death penalty will come back into practice.

And therein lies the problem with religion. Don't believe what I believe? I'm going to kill you! and they say us atheists have no morals or ethics at least we don't kill people for having different opinions To bad for all the christians/non-religious people in Israel then. I'm sure Israel would be violating multiple things on the decleration of human rights if the Sahedrin is re-established.

When the Sanhedrin is re-established that won't be a problem, because there will be no Christians, no non-religious Jews, and no declaration of human rights. If you don't believe me just wait and see.

[Yitzi_K]

i don't know if that is actually accurate but yeah its not preached to die if you do work on sunday or wateva day

And which religion are you talking about?

[superflya]

Do you stone people for not observing the sabbath?

No, but as I said above, it's not because of any moral problem against it. The law that says that people who break the Sabbath are to be stoned is still 100% in effect. The reason it's not used is because there is no Sanhedrin, so no one in this time has the power to impose a death penalty. Once the Sanhedrin is re-established, the death penalty will come back into practice.

And therein lies the problem with religion. Don't believe what I believe? I'm going to kill you! and they say us atheists have no morals or ethics at least we don't kill people for having different opinions To bad for all the christians/non-religious people in Israel then. I'm sure Israel would be violating multiple things on the decleration of human rights if the Sahedrin is re-established.

When the Sanhedrin is re-established that won't be a problem, because there will be no Christians, no non-religious Jews, and no declaration of human rights. If you don't believe me just wait and see.

 o.0

[TrueLight]

i don't know if that is actually accurate but yeah its not preached to die if you do work on sunday or wateva day

And which religion are you talking about?

greek orthodox

but anyway isn't this discussion going off course... it probably belongs in the debate section

[Blakhitman]

When the Sanhedrin is re-established that won't be a problem, because there will be no Christians, no non-religious Jews, and no declaration of human rights. If you don't believe me just wait and see.

oooooookay.

[Cthulhu]

Do you stone people for not observing the sabbath?

No, but as I said above, it's not because of any moral problem against it. The law that says that people who break the Sabbath are to be stoned is still 100% in effect. The reason it's not used is because there is no Sanhedrin, so no one in this time has the power to impose a death penalty. Once the Sanhedrin is re-established, the death penalty will come back into practice.

And therein lies the problem with religion. Don't believe what I believe? I'm going to kill you! and they say us atheists have no morals or ethics at least we don't kill people for having different opinions To bad for all the christians/non-religious people in Israel then. I'm sure Israel would be violating multiple things on the decleration of human rights if the Sahedrin is re-established.

When the Sanhedrin is re-established that won't be a problem, because there will be no Christians, no non-religious Jews, and no declaration of human rights. If you don't believe me just wait and see.

I expect the middle east to wipe itself out well before the time comes when any middle eastern religion thinks it can try and take over the world.